Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Conservation Action Plan

Landscape
Conservation
Action Plan
Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership

Orchid Carr House Meadows
Photo Sarah Sidgwick
This is a special – and unique – area
and the work of the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership seeks to identify,
protect and celebrate these qualities.
2 SLLP LCAP Introduction

Introduction and Acknowledgements
Since before anyone here thought about
a Landscape Partnership, and certainly
well before any staff were engaged to
deliver one, individuals from a range of
organisations met, discussed related issues,
decided on strategies and delivered good
environmental, cultural heritage, leisure and
health initiatives across the place that we
are now calling Sheffield Lakeland.
At some point during those conversations
the ‘germ idea’ of formalising working
together was hatched, the Heritage Lottery
Fund offered the catalyst through the
Landscape Partnerships programme and a
steering group came together to deliver a
Landscape Conservation Action Plan (LCAP).
It would have been 2015 when people
started to work in earnest toward such
a goal and only in spring of 2017 did the
Heritage Lottery offer financial support for
that group to engage paid staff to take the
next step.
Throughout 2017-18, the steering group
has continued to support and shape the
development of the Partnership programme
and in this we would like to recognise that
whether employed or acting in a voluntary
capacity, not one of them had ‘Creating A
Landscape Partnership’ as part of their role.
The work of this group towards bringing a
Landscape Partnership about will mostly
go un-noted across the community; this is
a suitable point to record their effort and to
recognise the work they have done.
A Landscape Partnership is by definition
a team effort. We would like to take
this opportunity to thank everyone who
contributed ideas, advice, specialist
knowledge and constructive feedback to
help bring the Landscape Conservation
Action Plan to this stage. This also includes:
• Our project monitor, Mike Harding, and
HLF case officer Nick Rochford for their
calm, patient advice.
• The community groups and 100s of local
people who have given their time to share
their understanding of the area, their
passion for the place where they live and
their hopes and fears for its future.
Particular thanks are also due to the long
list of photographers who have kindly given
permission for us to reproduce their images
for the purposes of the LCAP and to those
who generously licensed their images under
Creative Commons.
Andy Morffew; Andrew Stringer; Claire
Watts; Chris Prescott; Guy Badham; Helena
Dolby; Ignite Imaginations; Keith Tomkins;
Laura Page; Melanie Fitzgerald; Nabil Abbas;
Neil Theasby; Pecsaetan; Rob Miller; Russell
Hague; Sarah Eykyn; Sarah Sidgwick;
Sheffield City Council, Sheffield and
Rotherham Wildlife Trust; South Yorkshire
Archaeological Service; South Yorkshire Bat
Group; Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome;
Tom Newman; Tom Vickers; Trevor Bagshaw;
Yorkshire Water
We are sorry if we have inadvertently missed
you out – please let us know and we will
gladly acknowledge your contribution.
Keith Tomkins
Programme Manager
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
May 2018
SLLP LCAP Introduction
3

Contents
1 Introduction to the Plan – What is a Landscape Partnership? .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Our Landscape .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Our Shared Vision for Sheffield Lakeland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4 The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5 Understanding the Sheffield Lakeland .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6 Our Statement of Significance .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7 Our Aims and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
8 Summary of Key Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
9 Monitoring and Evaluation .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
10 Our Legacy .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
11 Our Full Programme of Projects for Sheffield Lakeland .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
12 Appendices .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
Index of Maps
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership Area .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Map of the UK showing Sheffield
Lakeland area in a national context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership Area .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Landscape Character Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Landscape Survey .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Landscape Concept Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Designated sites and Woodlands
within the SLLP boundary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Habitats in the Sheffield Lakeland area .. . . . . . . . 45
Suitable Habitat: Barn Owl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Suitable Habitat: Bats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Suitable Habitat: Goshawk .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Suitable Habitat: Nightjar .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Suitable Habitat: Osprey .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Species Records and Suitable
Habitat: Water Vole .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Suitable Habitat: Woodland Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Peak District National Park within
the Sheffield Lakeland Area .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
South Pennine Protected Areas
covering the Sheffield Lakeland Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Local Wildlife Sites and other Protected
Areas outside the National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Index of Tables
Governance Structure .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Steering Group Membership .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Delivery Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Contributing Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Community of Partners .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Increases in match funding and support .. . . . . . . . 165
Changes in budget between stage
one and the LCAP submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Project summary risk register . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Budget summary using HLF format .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Heritage Lottery Fund Outcome Matrix .. . . . . . . . . . . 243
Programme Gantt Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Monitoring and evaluation framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Sheffield Lakeland evaluation matrix .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
5 Year Legacy Cash Flow Forecast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
4

Introduction to the plan
What is a Landscape Partnership?
The Heritage Lottery Fund defines landscapes and
Landscape Partnerships in the following way:
“Landscapes are an important part of our past and play an
important part in our lives today. That’s why the Heritage
Lottery Fund helps conserve them and get more people
involved in understanding and looking after them for the
long term. Since 2003, HLF has committed grant-aid totalling
£220m to 124 Landscape Partnership schemes across the UK.
Landscape Partnership schemes put heritage conservation
at the heart of rural and peri-urban regeneration. Local,
regional and national organisations work together to make
a real difference to landscapes and communities for the
long term. They do this by conserving habitats at landscapescale,
promoting joined-up management, reviving long-lost
skills, and much more. HLF-funded projects make a major
contribution to work in the UK on implementing the
European Landscape Convention.”
One of the many weirs on the River Rivelin. Photo K. Tomkins
5

Our Landscape Conservation Action Plan
A Landscape Conservation Action Plan - a whole that is
greater than the sum of its parts.
Our Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Conservation Action Plan, (LCAP), will inform
our partners, funders and other stakeholders
of our vision for the Sheffield Lakeland area
and the breadth of our immediate plans
in working toward that vision. In order to
achieve this, the Landscape Conservation
Action Plan:
The Landscape Conservation Action Plan
also describes where we hope to be as
a partnership when the lifespan of the
current plan, (2018-2022), is complete, how
we will monitor and evaluate the results of
our work and help guide the development
of the Partnership, through legacy
planning, into the future.
• Brings together information on the
landscape, its character and the
ecosystem services it already provides,
relevant national and regional strategies,
together with a summation of the natural,
cultural and social heritage that makes
Sheffield Lakeland a landscape to cherish.
• Considers what is significant about
the landscape and sets objectives
we aspire towards regarding what is
most important, whilst acknowledging
potential risks and recognising the
limits of what can be achieved within a
partnership approach over a short period
of time.
• Describes the Partnership and explained
why each partner became involved.
• Creates a range of 20 projects, each
of which contributes towards one or
more of our agreed objectives, whilst
also engaging and contributing to other
projects, resulting in a whole that is
greater than the sum of its parts.
6 SLLP LCAP Introduction

Our Landscape
Defining Sheffield Lakeland
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership area is bounded to the north by
the A616 Stocksbridge Bypass and Sheffield
City and Barnsley MBC local authority
boundaries. To the west the boundary
follows the course of the Little Don river from
the point that it enters Langsett Reservoir
top Harden Clough where it reaches the
watershed and then continues south along
the line of the watershed as far as Stanage
Pole on the Long Causeway. The southern
boundary of the Partnership area skirts the
south of the three Redmires reservoirs and
follows Brown Hill Lane and Lodge Moor
Road eastward to the urban edge of the
city at Lodge Moor. The eastern boundary of
the Landscape Partnership area follows the
peri-urban margin of Sheffield as far as the
River Don, then continues northward along
the Upper Don Valley until the A616 crosses
the Don at Soughley Bridge near Deepcar.
See ‘Map 1 The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Area’ on the following page.
The Landscape area covers 145km 2 , the
central point being close to the village of
High Bradfield with its Grade l listed Norman
church and nearby Bailey Hill Scheduled
Monument (SM). The western margin
includes the Dark Peak Site of Special
Scientific Interest, (SSSI), Peak District
Moors Special Protected Area, (SPA), and
South Pennine Moors Special Area of
Conservation, (SAC). The role of Sheffield
Lakeland’s undesignated valleys as both
stepping stone and buffer between the
SPA and SAC and the city, in the context
of the Lawton Review ‘Making Space
for Nature’ (DEFRA, 2010), is not to be
underestimated.
Water is a key part of Sheffield Lakeland.
Three of Sheffield’s five principal rivers rise
within the Landscape area. A multitude of
fast flowing streams tumble down steep
sided valleys from the moors to fill the 14
major reservoirs which help define the area
and provide water for industry and clean
drinking water to thousands of people in
Sheffield and beyond. The reservoirs form
such a distinctive aspect of the landscape
that they inspired a bus company in the
1950’s to establish bus tours from the city
to visit the ‘Sheffield Lakeland’.
Edgelands, Stannington, Loxley Valley
SLLP LCAP Our Landscape 7

8 SLLP LCAP Our Landscape

The community of the landscape
Over 30,000 people live within the
Landscape area. There is a particularly
strong and unique Sheffield Carol tradition
celebrated each year in local venues. Each
community retains its thriving brass or silver
band tradition, male voice and community
choirs and Bradfield hosts an annual music
festival featuring artists of international
repute. Local creative industries are based
in the area, including Stoneface Creative
who use the local gritstone for their stone
sculpture work. Key local stories deserve to
be shared more widely, including that of
the Great Sheffield Flood of 1864 and of the
links the area has to both World War I and
II through the camps and military training
grounds at Redmires, for example.
Over half a million people live in the city
of Sheffield, with growing polarisation
between the least and most deprived and
an increasingly ageing population. Sheffield
has a higher proportion of patients with
depression than is found nationally and a
high prevalence of mental health issues and
type 2 diabetes is found not just within inner
city areas, but also in urban fringe villages
such as Stannington (local GP pers. comm.).
In two of the last five years, Sheffield has
had higher rates of overweight and obese
10-11-year olds than the regional and national
average and campaigns such as ‘Move More’
have been launched as a part of a package
of actions to address the city’s growing
health inequalities.
Sheffield is known as a “city of sanctuary” and
as such welcomes new arrivals and asylum
seekers. The BME population in the city
increased significantly since the 2001 Census,
from around 11% of the total population
to 19% in 2011, with the Roma community
continuing to increase significantly since
then, (Sheffield First Partnership, 2016).
The Great Sheffield Flood of 1864 claimed at least 240
lives. © www.picturesheffield.com/PA Wire
Main photo: Walkers on the northern boundary of the
Sheffield Lakeland area enjoying views towards the Upper
Don Valley. Photo courtesy Stocksbridge Walkers are
Welcome.
9 SLLP LCAP Our Landscape 9

Why is Sheffield Lakeland so special?
The north west of Sheffield is an outstanding
example of a living landscape, rich in history,
with diverse habitats abundant in wildlife,
vibrant communities and strong traditions.
The Sheffield Lakeland area is dominated
by fast flowing rivers, which flow off the
heather clad grouse moors and tumble
through steep, wooded valleys to meet up
in the industrial heart of Sheffield. The rivers
powered the corn mills that fed the medieval
town and then gave energy to the machines
that drove the early years of the industrial
revolution, helping to transform that Sheffield
into the Steel City - with an international
reputation for quality steels and technical
excellence which continues into the 21st
century.
Today the rivers continue to provide water
for industry as well as filling the reservoirs
that provide drinking water for Sheffield and
surrounding towns. In addition, both rivers
and reservoirs offer much-loved places for
sport, recreation or quiet reflection.
Many thousands of years of human interaction
with the landscape have left behind Mesolithic
and Neolithic artefacts, Bronze Age earthworks,
pack horse bridges and mileposts,
historic inns, cruck barns and a lattice of dry
stone walls. The civil engineering triumph of
the reservoirs adds its own distinctive Victorian
Gothic vernacular to the landscape.
This is a special – and unique area – and the
work of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership seeks to identify, protect and
celebrate these qualities.
A bus ticket from the original Sheffield Lakeland bus tours
Sheffield Lakeland in a national context
The Sheffield Lakeland area lies in the north
western portion of the Sheffield City Council
administrative boundary in the eastern
foothills of the Pennines and includes the
valleys of the Upper Don and four of its
tributaries, the Little Don, the Loxley, the
Ewden Beck, and the Rivelin.
Sheffield is comprised of 61% green space,
and a third of the city lies within the Peak
District National Park. There are more than
250 parks, woodlands and gardens in the
city and Sheffield is estimated to contain
over four million trees. In the 19th century,
Sheffield gained an international reputation
for steel production. Known affectionately
as the Steel City, many innovations were
developed locally, including crucible and
stainless steel, fuelling an almost tenfold
increase in the city’s population during the
Industrial Revolution, which had at its heart
the water power generated by Sheffield
Lakeland.
Sheffield’s international reputation for
engineering and high-end steel production
continues into the 21st century. It is
remarkable that two thirds of figure skaters
at the Pyeonchang Winter Olympics wore
blades made in Sheffield winning 18 medals.
Source: www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-southyorkshire-43219349/sheffield-steel-used-in-medal-winningice-skaters-blades
2018
10 SLLP LCAP Our Landscape

SLLP LCAP Our Landscape
11

Our Shared Vision for Sheffield
A more natural and resilient Lakeland
landscape for everyone to value, enjoy,
understand and feel part of.
Our partnership shares a vision for a Sheffield
Lakeland in which a resilient network of
diverse habitats thrives alongside the area’s
living, productive landscape, rich heritage,
vibrant communities and strong traditions.
A landscape of native clough woodland
and gritstone crags where water springs
from rain drenched moorland to tumble
through wooded valleys to the tranquillity
of the reservoirs below. Where historic trade
routes weave through a lattice of dry stone
walls, past troughs and guide stoops, now
connecting city communities to country.
which provides clean water and air, helps
to reduce flooding and benefits the health
and wellbeing of communities within the
Lakeland area and in the city. A Lakeland
landscape for everyone to enjoy and feel
part of, that is cherished, understood and
valued now and in the future.
During the development period, the project
team worked with local photographers and
musicians to create a short video capturing
the essence of our vision for Sheffield
Lakeland which can be viewed on Youtube
here: https://youtu.be/-qjBTitxYoU.
A mosaic of “lakes”, forests, farmland and
industry where geography intertwines with
layers of human interaction, and Little Don,
Ewden, Loxley and Rivelin carve their own
distinct character on their journey to the Don.
A landscape alive to the sound of water,
bird song and human voices, in which
the telling of stories past and present
deepens understanding of the area’s special
significance and inspires new audiences and
future generations to share in and protect its
unique character and sense of place.
A Sheffield Lakeland in which collaborative
working and positive management balance
the needs of wildlife, agriculture, forestry
and recreation, and support a landscape
A winter sunburst over Bradfield Dale. Photo courtesy
of Russell Hague Photography
SLLP LCAP Shared Vision
12

Damflask Reservoir,
Photo T. Bagshaw
The rivers and reservoirs offer
much-loved places for sport,
recreation or quiet reflection
SLLP LCAP Shared Vision
13

Our Partnership
This chapter outlines the approach to
governance, partnership working, terms of
reference and delivery arrangements for the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The steering group has agreed and signed a
partnership agreement (Appendix 1). Those
partners, steering group members and
otherwise, responsible for delivering projects
with Heritage Lottery Fund, (HLF), support
are required to sign an accompanying
delivery agreement confirming their
commitment to meet HLF guidelines.
Governance Structure
Governance Structure
Role
• Oversight
• Direction setting
• LCAP content
• Common fund
• Advice and support for the programme
management team.
Membership
SLLP Steering Group
• Bradfield Parish Council
• The Environment Agency
• Natural England
• Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
• Sheffield City Council
• Sheffield United Community Foundation
• South Yorkshire Archaeology Service
• Stocksbridge Town Council
• Yorkshire Water
• Programme management
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust,
(SRWT), as lead partner:
• Keith Tomkins (Programme Manager)
• Roy Mosley (Department Head)
• Liz Ballard (SRWT Chief Executive)
14 SLLP LCAP Shared Vision

There are different types of partners:
1. The Landscape Partnership Steering Group
A small group of partners who have significant interest in the programme’s overall
success. This group is tasked with steering and guiding the partnership team, keeping
to budget, managing risk and focussing on priorities. Each steering group partner has
signed up to a governance structure and partnership agreement (which includes terms
of reference). The steering group partners are listed overleaf.
2. The Landscape Partnership Delivery Partners
A wider group of partners with a specific interest in contributing and/or delivering a
specific activity or project within the partnership programme. Each delivery partner
will be formally engaged in projects through a delivery agreement (Appendix 2).
3. The Landscape Contributory Partnership
Groups who will help us achieve our objectives with the support of the steering
group or delivery partners.
4. The Community of Partners
An ever-growing community of interests with involvement in the Partnership, including
for example artists, land owners, walking groups and the Local Access Forums.
The diversity of ideas brings strength to the Partnership. Photo L. Page
SLLP LCAP Shared Introduction Vision
15

The Steering Group
The Landscape Partnership steering group is made up of the following people
and organisations:
The Steering Group
Organisation Contact Name Programme Interest
Sheffield and
Rotherham
Wildlife Trust,
(SRWT), Lead
Partner
Liz Ballard, Chief Executive
Roy Mosley, Head of
Conservation and Land
Management
Andrew Perrins, SRWT Trustee
and Chair of steering group
Krys Craik, SRWT Trustee
Sheffield and Rotherham based nature
conservation charity and lead partner with
interests in:
• Landscape-scale heritage conservation
(living landscapes)
• Community engagement, and
• Improved physical, and informational access
for all.
Yorkshire Water
(YW)
Geoff Lomas, Catchment and
Recreation Manager
Water company responsible for managing the
collection, treatment and distribution of water
in Yorkshire with interests in:
• significant land-owning interests
• improving woodland management
• improving biodiversity,
• ecosystem services, and
• public benefit and recreation
Sheffield City
Council (SCC)
Dave Aspinall, Countryside
Manager
Local authority for Sheffield with interests in:
• significant land-owning interests
• improving woodland management
• improving biodiversity,
• ecosystem services, and
• public benefit and recreation
Bradfield Parish
Council (BPC)
Cllr Mavis Butler, Parish
Councillor
Cllr Vickie Priestley, Parish and
City Councillor
Large parish council at the centre of the SLLP
area with interests in:
• local community involvement
• improvements to the area
• sensitive promotion of the built and natural
heritage of the area
16 SLLP LCAP Shared Vision

The Steering Group (continued)
Organisation Contact Name Programme Interest
Sheffield United
Community
Foundation
(SUCF)
Chris Bailey, (replaced Mark
Todd), SUCF Acting Head of
Community
Charitable foundation of Sheffield United football
club with interests in:
• engaging a diverse community in pro-social
behaviours including being more active and
exploring the outdoors
• particularly young people aged 15-17 years.
Natural England
(NE)
Felicité Dodd, NE Team
Leader for the Peak District
National Park area
The government’s adviser for the natural
environment in England with interests in:
• landscape-scale conservation
• eco-system services
• biodiversity
• advice to land-owners
• agri-environment grants and licences.
Environment
Agency (EA)
Jo Briddock, Catchment
Co-ordinator Don and Rother,
and Adam Mullen (deputy)
The government’s adviser for water, waste and
pollution management with interests in:
• opportunities to improve catchment
management for people and biodiversity under
the Water Framework Directive
• natural flood management.
South Yorkshire
Archaeology
Service (SYAS)
Jim McNeil, Archaeologist
The archaeological advisors to the councils of
Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield with
interests in:
• advice to a wide range of land managers and
developers
• South Yorkshire heritage and archaeology
Stocksbridge
Town Council
(STC)
Cllr Alan Law, Stocksbridge
Town Councillor and City
Councillor
Town council for Stocksbridge, (population 13500),
in the north of the SLLP area with interests in:
• local community involvement
• improvements to the area
• sensitive promotion of the built and natural
heritage of the area.
Non-aligned
independent
supporter
Trevor Bagshaw
Non-voting advisor to the steering group
The steering group has agreed to work together to ensure that the Partnership’s
activities adhere to both HLF’s and SRWT’s procedures and conditions, (with HLF
taking precedence should conflict arise).
SLLP LCAP Shared Vision
17

Recognising Delivery Partners
Our Landscape Partnership also includes
a range of organisations which have
committed to deliver specific projects
on behalf of the Partnership. The lead
partner, Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife
Trust, retains the legal agreement with the
Heritage Lottery Fund. Delivery partners are
responsible for undertaking the projects
agreed through the Landscape Conservation
Action Plan and will be required to sign
both the delivery agreement shown in
Appendix 2, in addition to a copy of this
Landscape Conservation Action Plan to
confirm they will follow and comply with
HLF guidelines before undertaking any work
under the SLLP programme.
Delivery Partners
Organisation Contact name and project(s) agreed Signature and date on Delivery Agreement
Yorkshire Water
(YW)
Sheffield City
Council (SCC)
Sheffield City
Council (SCC)
Geoff Lomas, Catchment and
Recreation Manager
- Creating a New Nature Reserve at
Midhope
- New Access at Langsett
Dave Aspinall, Countryside Manager
- The Woodland Heart
- Hidden History
Richard Harris, Ecology Unit Manager
- Bringing Local Wildlife Sites into
Positive Management
Steel Valley
Project
Bradfield Parish
Council
Tom Newman, General Manager
- Woodland Heart
- Restoring the Lattice
- Access and Gateways
- Fox Glen Heritage Project
Cllr Mavis Butler, Parish Council
Member
- Community Grant Scheme
Stocksbridge
Town Council
Cllr Alan Law, Town Council Member
- Community Grant Scheme
Wildscapes
Environmental
Consultancy
Jon Goodrick, Consultancy Manager
- Supporting Species
Moors for the
Future
Matt Buckler, Programme Manager –
Conservation and Land Management
- North America Path
18 SLLP LCAP Shared Vision

Contributing Partners
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership is committed to supporting
smaller local groups within the Landscape
Partnership, those that have restricted
geographical or sector interests which
would not want to be part of the overall
programme, but nevertheless fulfil vital roles
within the landscape and community.
These partners have committed
to undertake projects within the
Landscape Conservation Action Plan,
but, predominantly because of restricted
cashflow or capacity reasons, cannot act as
delivery partners. Instead they will deliver
projects, or pats of projects with the lead
partner, Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife
Trust, acting as the responsible body.
Dave Pickersgill of Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome
at a stakeholder meeting Millennium Gallery, Sheffield
January 2018. Photo C. Watts
19

Contributing Partners
Organisation Contact Name Agreed Project(s)
Loxley and Wadsley
Commoners
Alan Bailey
Supporting Local Groups
Hidden History
St Nicholas Church Rev Alan Isaacson Supporting Local Groups
South Yorkshire Bat Group Paul Liptrot Supporting Local Groups
Rivelin Conservation Group Graham Appleby Supporting Local Groups
Peak District Raptor
Monitoring Group
Peak District National Park
Authority
Mark Price
Rebecca Waddington
Supporting Species
Hidden History
Stoneface Creative Tom Vickers Restoring the Lattice
Hidden History
Hunter Archaeology
Society & South Yorkshire
Industrial History Society
Claire Smyth
Tony Ball (SYIHS)
Hidden History
Stocksbridge and District
History Society
Sheffield University /
Storying Sheffield
Bradfield Walkers are
Welcome
Stocksbridge Walkers are
Welcome
Norfolk Arms Pub Walks
(Ringinglow)
Dennis Pinder
Prof Brendon Stone
Chris Prescott / Gordon Danks
Dave Pickersgill
Steve Murfitt
Hidden History
Hidden History
Telling the Stories of the Landscape
Access and Gateways knowledge
Access and Gateways knowledge
Access and Gateways knowledge
LEAF / FACE David Etheridge Landscape Connections
Our Cow Molly Edward Andrew Landscape Connections
British Red Cross Refugee
Orientation Service
Sheffield & Rotherham
Yanina Ferreira Chicaiza
Connecting Steps
Deepcar Brass Band Secretary Art in the Landscape
Geography Department
SHU
Dr Jon Bridge
Working with water
Soundpost Frances Watt Art in the Landscape - ReSound
British Horse Society Georgina Hartley Heritage Highways
20 SLLP LCAP Shared Vision

Community of Partners
Other groups, organisations and individuals
have supported the development of this
Landscape Conservation Action Plan
contributing advice, ideas and opinions.
It is our intention that these and other
community-based groups will continue
to contribute to the successful delivery of
projects either through active participation
or through on-going feedback.
Some groups will be a source of volunteers
or will undertake small defined pieces
of work on behalf of other projects.
It is difficult to list all supporting and
participating groups that have contributed
to the development of the Landscape
Conservation Action Plan, but the partners
listed below are representative of the
community of partners in the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
Jan Symington of Loxley Valley Protection Society
providing advice and information about the history of
the Loxley Valley, Photo C.Watts
SLLP LCAP Shared Vision
21

Community of Partners
Hillsborough Golf Club
(Project 3. LWS)
SRWT Reserve Management
Groups
Loxley Valley Protection Society
Greave House Farm Ignite Imaginations Stocksbridge Over 50s Group
Stannington Health Walks
Oughtibridge Men’s Support
Group
Bradfield Walkers are Welcome
Conversation clubs e.g. “Natter”
Stannington
Sheffield Environmental Group
Stocksbridge Walkers are
Welcome
Worrall Environmental Group Friends of Coronation Park Deepcar Brass Band
Bolsterstone Heritage and
Archaeology Group
Sheffield City of Sanctuary
Stocksbridge and District
Historical Society
Clifton Learning Partnership
ROSHNI
(South Asian Women’s Group)
Sheffield Chinese Elders
Community
Stocksbridge Community Forum
Bradfield Historical Society
Stannington Writing Group
Manor and Castle Development
Trust
Action for Stannington
Sheffield LAF
Parson Cross Social Cafe Stocksbridge U3A Peak District LAF
Greave House Care Farm,
Stocksbridge
British Red Cross Refugee
Orientation Service
Sheffield Young Archaeologists
Club
Hunter Archaeology
Sheffield Bird Study Group
South Yorkshire Bat Group
Peak District Raptor Group Ride Sheffield Joined Up Heritage Sheffield
South Yorkshire Industrial
Archaeology Society
Dark Peak Fell Runners
East Peak Countryside
Associates
Bradfield-Dungworth School British Cycling Linking Environment and
Farming (LEAF)
Manor and Castle School Fox Valley Voices Dungworth Community Choir
Woodland Trust
Waymark Interpretation
22 SLLP LCAP Shared Vision

Geographical communities and communities
of interest intersecting in Sheffield Lakeland
Community Engagement Stakeholder Map
Sheffield Lakeland Partnership, June 2017
A Lakeland landscape for everyone
to enjoy and feel part of, that is
cherished, understood and valued
now and in the future.
SLLP LCAP Shared Vision
23

Understanding
Sheffield Lakeland
“Many thousands of years of human
interaction with the landscape have
left behind Mesolithic and Neolithic
artefacts, Bronze Age earth-works,
pack horse bridges and mileposts,
historic inns, cruck barns and a
lattice of dry stone walls.”
24 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
“Landscape - an area, as perceived by
people, whose character is the result
of the action and interaction of natural
and human factors”
European Landscape Convention, 2006
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape lies
between the vibrant city of Sheffield and the
internationally important uplands of the Dark
Peak. It sits wholly within the boundary of
Sheffield City Council and over half the area
falls within the Peak District National Park.
The area is bounded to the north by the A616
Stocksbridge Bypass and Sheffield City and
Barnsley MBC local authority boundaries. To
the west the boundary follows the course
of the Little Don river from the point that
it enters Langsett Reservoir to Harden
Clough where it reaches the watershed and
then continues south along the line of the
watershed as far as Stanage Pole on the
Long Causeway. The southern boundary of
the Partnership area skirts the south of the
three Redmires reservoirs and follows Brown
Hill Lane and Lodge Moor Road eastward to
the urban edge of the city at Lodge Moor.
The eastern boundary of the Landscape
Partnership area follows the peri-urban
margin of Sheffield as far as the River Don,
then continues northward along the Upper
Don Valley until the A616 crosses the Don at
Soughley Bridge near Deepcar.
The Partnership area encompasses the
towns, villages and hamlets of Stocksbridge,
Deepcar, High Bradfield, Low Bradfield,
Dungworth, Wharncliffe Side, Oughtibridge,
Bolsterstone, Ewden, Midhopestones,
Worrall, Loxley, Stannington, Upper Midhope,
Brightholmlee, Ughill and Hollow Meadows.
Bradfield Cross. Photo Stoneface Creative
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
25

This chapter underpins our understanding
of the area’s special character and sense of
place. It draws on existing local, regional
and national research and strategies, and
the deep local knowledge of our partners
and stakeholders. In addition, a range of
new research was commissioned during the
development period, with the aim of:
• Clarifying and confirming Sheffield
Lakeland as a distinct landscape
• Reviewing the proposed boundary, and
• Providing the detailed analysis needed to
support the development and evaluation
of the delivery programme.
The research projects covered the
following topics:
Extracts and summaries from these reports
are provided throughout this chapter to
provide an understanding of the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership area. The
full reports which support this chapter are
included in Appendices 3-8.
The reports have been developed using a
combination of desk research, new survey
and consultation activity. In addition, each
individual project within the Landscape
Conservation Action Plan has referenced
local, regional, national or international
reports, consultation documents or
strategies relevant to that project’s field of
interest. A summary of relevant strategy
documents and reports is provided at the
end of this chapter, in the section titled
Reports and Management Information.
• Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Character Assessment
• Sheffield Lakeland Ecosystems
Services Assessment and
Woodland Assessment
• Sheffield Lakeland Ecological
Assessment
• Sheffield Lakeland Heritage
Assessment, including Woodland
Archaeology
• Sheffield Lakeland Access and
Gateway Assessment
• Sheffield Lakeland Audience
Development Strategic Review
26 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

The Sheffield Lakeland Project Area (showing City and National Park boundaries
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
27

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT
Understanding our landscape character
A new landscape character assessment was
developed by the Peak District National
Park Authority, on behalf of the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership. The
following is an extract of the key points and
the full report and mapping can be seen in
Appendix 3.
“The valleys are dominant features,
contrasting with some of the higher
plateau landscapes, which contain
the network of reservoirs and link
the urban areas to the east with the
moorlands to the west.”
The landscape of the Sheffield Lakeland
Partnership area is not of a single, consistent
character – it is made up of a number of
landscape types, each with their own sense
of place, special qualities and management/
enhancement needs and opportunities. The
Sheffield Lakeland programme outcomes
and projects need to respond to and address
this spatial diversity in landscape character.
Landscapes differ because of many variables,
(including underlying geology, soils,
topography, land cover, hydrology, historic
and cultural development, and climate), and
it is the interaction between characteristics
arising from these influences, and their
complex interrelationships, that makes one
landscape different to another.
Landscape Character may be defined
as a distinct and recognisable pattern
of elements, or characteristics, in the
landscape that make one landscape
different from another (An approach to LCA,
Natural England, October 2014). Landscape
Character Assessment, (LCA), is the process
of identifying, classifying and describing this
variation in the character of the landscape.
The LCA has an important role to play
in managing and guiding change, by
establishing a robust evidence base linked
to place and presenting a holistic approach
at a landscape scale, (rather than focusing
on special or protected sites or features)
and forming an agreed spatial framework
of landscape character types to which
different policy options and decisionmaking
can be applied.
A key purpose of the LCA is to provide an
evidence base to (a) define and justify how
and why the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
is distinct and (b) link projects to the sense
of place and management priorities for the
landscapes of the Sheffield Lakeland.
The LCA sets out to:
• Identify and provide reliable evidence
of the spatial characteristics of
landscape in the Sheffield Lakeland
project area;
• Identify the overall landscape
objective for each Landscape
Character Type and a set of priorities
and actions to achieve the overall aim.
• Spatially link Landscape Partnership
outcomes to the character of
the landscape and identify the
connections between those
outcomes / projects and the areas of
distinct character within the Sheffield
Lakeland project boundary.
• Enable more effective prioritisation
of future project proposals, enabling
evaluation against an understanding
of the key characteristics, sense of
place and management objectives
for the landscape.
28 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT
Landscape character
assessment methodology
for Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Character Types
are spatial areas that share both
landscape elements (drystone
walls, pasture fields, undulating
slopes, blocks of woodland etc)
and overall character.
It was felt that the existing Landscape
Character Types, (LCTs), in use by the
National Park were not sufficiently
detailed or accurate when applied to
the smaller scale of the Landscape
Partnership area. Revised LCT boundaries
were determined by desktop and site
assessment, characterised and remapped,
including some areas which had
previously been uncharacterised.
A field survey was undertaken to add
additional spatial detail to the LCT
assessment sheets and a photographic
survey was used to illustrate the character
of each individual LCT. Detailed character
assessment sheets for each of the
Landscape Character Types have been
produced and can be seen in Appendix 3.
Revised landscape character
types for Sheffield Lakeland
The individual character types identified as
being present within the Sheffield Lakeland
area are:
• Enclosed gritstone uplands: Permanent
pasture and rough grazing enclosed by
gritstone walls on rolling uplands above
the river valleys and reservoirs with
remnant patches, (some of which are
extensive), of rough land with bracken,
gorse, heather and bilberry.
• Slopes and valleys with woodlands:
Sloping valley side landform running
east–west which contain the ‘necklace’ of
reservoirs with dramatic gritstone edges,
(such as Rivelin Rocks, Hallam Edge and
Rocher Rocks), characterising the tops
of some of the steeper valley slopes.
Landcover is predominantly small, regular,
pasture fields enclosed by hedges and
gritstone walls with blocks of woodland.
• Moorland slopes and cloughs: Slopes
and cloughs rising to areas of moorland
plateau with some prominent gritstone
outcrops, such as Gibraltar Rocks, Hurkling
Stones and Loxley Edge. Landcover is
dominated by rough acid grassland,
bracken and heather moorland with some
relic areas of oak-birch woodland in the
cloughs. This character type often forms
the backdrop to views within the Sheffield
Lakeland area.
• Developed: this is a new category which
has a wider definition than the previous
category, which was known as ‘urban’
in the Peak District Landscape Strategy.
This includes residential areas, but also
associated infrastructure and other uses
where the nature of the landscape has
been significantly altered such as golf
courses, cemeteries and land associated
with road corridors or other forms of
development.
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
29

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT
Drawn by:
Date:
Drawing No:
Scale:
Meetham Rob
01 November 2017
1:56500 at A3
Title:
6 Lines Maximum!
Plan 1: Sheffield Lakeland - Landscape Character Types in
the Sheffield Lakeland
30 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT
The revised LCT’s are shown on the above
map. In comparison with previous plans
prepared for the Peak District National Park
Landscape Strategy, the Enclosed Gritstone
Upland LCT forms a larger element of the
landscape, with Slopes and Valleys with
Woodland forming ‘finger-like’ patterns
leading from the developed land into the
surrounding moorland. The valleys are
dominant features, contrasting with some
of the higher plateau landscapes, which
contain the network of reservoirs and
link the urban areas to the east with the
moorlands to the west.
The detailed landscape character
assessment sheets include:
• Assessment of the landscape’s character
and its sense of place
• Landform and elements
• Settlement pattern
• Ecological and cultural integrity and
pattern
• Aesthetic and perceptual qualities;
• Key visual attractors and detractors, key
views in and out and inter-visibility with
adjacent areas, and
• Enhancement opportunities and links
to Sheffield Lakeland Partnership
programme outcomes.
Photographic viewpoints
Fixed photographic viewpoints were
established to help identify elements
of landscape character, which can
continue to be used throughout the life
of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership’s work to monitor and
define positive and negative landscape
change.
The full set of photographic viewpoints
for each LCT are included in Appendix
3. An example of two contrasting LCT’s
are shown below:
A degraded landscape within the Enclosed Gritstone Upland LCT
Looking south over the Slopes and Valleys with Woodland LCT towards the Enclosed Gritstone Upland LCT
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
31

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT
KEY
PROMINENT AREAS
OF HEATH / MOOR
PROMINENT
LANDSCAPE EDGE
KEY SETTLEMENT
SSSI
PROMINENT CONIFEROUS
PLANTATION BLOCKS
PROMINENT LANDSCAPE
AREAS WITH LOSS / EROSION
OF KEY FEATURES (INCLUDING
DRY STONE WALLS)
KEY RESERVOIR VIEW
PROMINENT
URBAN EDGE
AREAS WITH LOSS
OF DRY STONE WALLS
PROMINENT STRUCTURE:
BOOTS FOLLY
NATURE RESERVES
INDUSTRIAL AREAS
CONSERVATION AREAS
SAM
Drawn by:
Date:
Drawing No:
Scale:
Meetham Rob
01 November 2017
1:56500 at A3
Title:
6 Lines Maximum!
Plan 2: Sheffield Lakeland - Landscape Survey
32 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT
Additional landscape survey
In addition to identifying LCT boundaries,
additional survey work was undertaken to
identify the following features which are
mapped on the above map:
• Reservoirs, streams and wetlands: water
is one of the key defining elements of the
Sheffield Lakeland project area.
• Cultural heritage features (Scheduled
Monuments, Listed Buildings,
Conservation Areas): the area has
numerous features that contribute to its
current character and provide a sense of
‘time depth’. Quarries, mine heads and
ganister pits were not recorded but should
be considered important features in the
landscape.
• Ecological sites (Sites of Special Scientific
Interest, Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust Nature Reserves and
Priority Habitat Inventory areas): linking
and enhancing these sites is a priority
project for enhancing landscape character.
Where specific landscape types, such
as areas of moorland, within different
character types were identified; these have
been included on the plan.
• Footpaths and access routes: the key
means of linking people to the landscape
and specific areas of interest within the
Sheffield Lakeland area.
• Key viewpoints: where panoramic views
of the landscape and key elements of
character – such as reservoirs - can be
experienced.
• Degraded landscapes, areas where
landscape elements - such as the
integrity and condition of dry stone walls
- and strength of character has been
eroded: restoring character, landscape
elements and areas of remnant habitat is a
priority for these areas.
Landscape strategy
Based on the survey and assessment work,
a landscape strategy was produced, which
identified how people might be spatially
linked to the landscape and provided
concepts for how the elements of landscape
that give Sheffield Lakeland its individual
character might be strengthened.
To complement the above, a Landscape
Concept Plan shows on a landscape scale
where individual projects within the Sheffield
Lakeland programme can enhance the key
character types within the Sheffield Lakeland
area. This plan provides a useful basis to
identify and prioritise future projects and
illustrates:
• The spatial location of landscape projects
which either restore landscape character,
where it is degraded, or build and
strengthen existing character; and
• Opportunities to connect people to the
landscape – to enable the celebration
of the unique features of this special
landscape and facilitate a greater
understanding of the processes that have
shaped it in the past and will continue to
do so in the future.
Specifically, these include:
• Existing woodland to diversify
• Existing heath/moorland to manage
• Existing access points from settlement
areas and routes through the landscape
• Designated areas including SSSI’s,
Conservation Areas, Scheduled Ancient
Monuments and SRWT nature reserves.
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
33

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT
KEY
Existing woodland to diversify
Existing heathland to manage
Existing key access points to the
landscape from settlements
Existing key routes & connections linking
people to the landscape
Conservation Areas
SAM
Nature reserves
Proposed key route linking people to key
elements of the landscape and other routes
Key habitat linkages
Areas of the landscape to restore character
Drawn by:
Date:
Drawing No:
Scale:
Meetham Rob
01 November 2017
1:56500 at A3
Title:
6 Lines Maximum!
Landscape Concept
Plan 3: Sheffield Lakeland - Landscape Concept
34 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ASSESSMENT
Geology and topography
Sheffield is underlain by rocks of
Carboniferous age which are tilted gently to
the south-east so that the oldest part of the
succession occurs in the west. The moors
to the west of Sheffield are formed in the
shales and hard coarse-grained sandstone
beds of Millstone Grit. These give way to
shale, mudstone and sandstones of the
overlying Coal Measures which underlie
much of the area east of the moors.
This varied geology results in important
differences in landscape character across
the Landscape Partnership area.
in relationship with the topography of the
rest of the Sheffield area. At their highest,
elevation exceeds 400m, extending down
as low as 130m. These upland areas are
incised by deep steep sided valleys.
The character of these areas does not stop
abruptly at Sheffield’s boundary but spreads
beyond into the neighbouring areas of the
Peak District, Barnsley, Rotherham and
North-East Derbyshire. (Sheffield Green
Belt preliminary landscape character
assessment, SCC).
The Pennine foot-hills and ridges to
the south-west, west and north-west of
Sheffield have a distinct upland character
Rocher Rocks, Bradfield Photo T. Bagshaw
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland 35

ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES & WOODLAND ASSESSMENT
Understanding our ecosystem services
A detailed report of ecosystem services in
the Sheffield Lakeland area was provided
by consultancy Natural Capital Solutions.
The following is an extract from this
comprehensive report which can be seen
in full at Appendix 4.
‘The breadth of Sheffield
Lakeland Partnership projects
can potentially increase the
capacity of the area to provide
ecosystem services across all
categories of services’
Natural Capital Solutions, 2018
The Sheffield Lakeland area is an
area important for the conservation
of biodiversity with nationally and
internationally important habitats and
species. In addition, the area has a rich
cultural heritage and many visitors are
drawn to the recreational opportunities and
aesthetic experiences that the area offers.
The Sheffield Lakeland area also supports
livelihoods associated with the land,
for example farming and grouse moor
management. These activities sit alongside
the other values placed on the landscape
outlined above and create challenges for
the sustainable management of the area.
Declining biodiversity, habitat degradation,
diffuse pollution, rising recreational numbers
and flooding are increasing pressures.
The Ecosystem Services assessment uses a
natural capital approach to assess the wider
services provided by the Sheffield Lakeland
area. The assessment serves as a baseline by
which to assess the success of the Sheffield
Lakeland Partnership projects in strengthening
the ecosystem services of the area. The first
step of the assessment demonstrates the
extent of natural capital assets, (habitats),
in the area by drawing up a Natural Capital
Asset Register. This is followed by a qualitative
assessment of the level of provision of the full
range of ecosystem services provided by the
Sheffield Lakeland area.
Key types of ecosystem services
Provisioning
Products obtained
from ecosystems
e.g. food, timber, water
Regulating
Benefits obtained from
environmental processes that
regulate the environment
e.g. air quality, climate
regulation, pollination
Cultural
Non-material benefits people
obtain from ecosystems
e.g. recreation, aesthetic
experiences, health and
wellbeing
Supporting (intermediate service)
Internal processes within ecosystems essential for the production of all other
ecosystem services e.g. soil formation, photosynthesis, nutrient cycling
36 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES & WOODLAND ASSESSMENT
Natural capital asset register
A natural capital asset register
has been created which shows
that improved grassland covers
the largest percentage (26%) of
the Sheffield Lakeland area, with
significant areas of bog habitats
(17%), woodland (15%), heather
(9%) and heather grassland (9%).
Acid grassland, rough grassland
and arable assets feature at
smaller extents (~5-6%).
These assets support a wide range of
provisioning, regulating and cultural services.
The most significant delivery is of drinking
water provision, with agricultural production
and cultural services, such as recreation and
aesthetic experiences also being supported to
a high level of provision. Regulating services
tend to be at a lower level due to the
predominance of agricultural activity and
grazed grassland.
Mapping shows the importance of low
intensity agriculture, the woodland and bog
habitats for storing carbon, reducing storm
water runoff, providing areas for recreation
and habitat for biodiversity. Woodland is
also important for timber production and
the reduction of air pollution, particularly
on the urban fringes where airborne
pollution is higher. Other habitats play a
role in some of these services, but to a
much smaller degree. A full set of maps
which illustrate eco-system services in the
Sheffield Lakeland area are provided in the
full report in Appendix 4.
The map below is one example and shows
the landscape’s capacity to reduce storm
water runoff.
Map of Landscape
capacity to reduce
storm water run-off
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
37

ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES & WOODLAND ASSESSMENT
Improving ecosystem services in Sheffield Lakeland
The breadth of Sheffield Lakeland
Partnership projects can potentially
increase the capacity of the area to provide
ecosystem services across all categories of
services. The projects focused on habitat
creation and the promotion of natural flood
management, are likely to increase the
delivery of important regulating services
such as water quality, flood alleviation, air
quality regulation, carbon sequestration,
and increase recreational opportunities as
well as improving habitat for wildlife. Other
projects that are focused on improving
access to the natural environment or
creating locally inspired art and music, will
also increase the cultural services.
In order to achieve the aspirations of the
Sheffield Lakeland Partnership project,
there is a need to promote the sustainable
management of multiple ecosystem service
benefits. There are trade-offs between
the provisioning service of agricultural
production promoting a dominance of
improved grassland, and the delivery of
other regulating ecosystem services such as
water quality regulation, flood alleviation,
carbon sequestration and erosion control.
It is key to understand which habitats can
be extended or created, as well as restored
to better quality, and where these should
be targeted to maximise the provision of
multiple services.
Given the predominance of agriculture, it
would be worth considering the feasibility
of payments for ecosystem services
schemes to incentivise management for
more diverse habitats, or reduces specific
impacts particularly with reference to
natural flood management opportunities.
‘The breadth of Sheffield Lakeland
Partnership projects can potentially
increase the capacity of the area to
provide ecosystem services across
all categories of services.’
Photo N. Abbas
38
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES & WOODLAND ASSESSMENT
Natural flood management
Due to the local cultural significance of flooding, there must be few
places better in the UK to raise the profile of low intensity (traditional)
land use as a modern response to such a compelling issue.
The Great Sheffield Flood
of 1864 continues to be a
cultural occurrence of some
significance to the area and
the Sheffield flooding of
2007, where two people died
and more than £6billion of
damage was caused, remains
well within living memory
of local communities. The
Sheffield Lakeland area is
a significant catchment for
Sheffield and the woodlands,
heathland mosaic and low
intensity agricultural systems
offer high potential for
natural flood management
across the landscape.
The synergy between culture,
land use, landscape, natural
flood management and our
natural heritage is of real
significance. Demonstrating
the benefits of a roughened
landscape with flushes,
pools, clough woodlands
and slow natural hydraulic
systems for something as
‘concrete’ as flood alleviation
is vital now as agricultural
land use change is occurring
with accompanying loss
of services and proposals
for large scale engineering
solutions continue to be put
forward with no reference
to their effectiveness in
comparison to similar
investments in more natural
solutions.
Due to the local cultural
significance of flooding,
there must be few places
better in the UK to raise
the profile of low intensity
(traditional) land use as a
modern response to such a
compelling issue.
Upland areas such
as this wet habitat
on Whitwell Moor
above Stocksbridge
offer great potential
for natural flood
management.
Photo, N. Abbas
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
39

ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES & WOODLAND ASSESSMENT
Woodland and forestry assessment
[An opportunity to] improve the
biodiversity, landscape and recreational
value of … woodlands whilst making them
more resilient to external threats such as
pests and diseases and climate change.
A separate assessment of woodlands within
the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
area owned and managed by three key
partners; Yorkshire Water (YW), Sheffield City
Council (SCC) and Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust (SRWT) was undertaken during
2017. The assessment identified collaborative
working opportunities between the principal
woodland owners across the Partnership
area.
The report proposes a joint approach to
the management of compartments with
limited commercial value in order to
provide long-term cultural benefits such as
habitat improvement, landscape protection
and long-term resilience. In particular, it
highlights a significant opportunity for
collaborative working around Gateway sites.
Some of the woodland areas which are
heavily dominated by a small number
of conifer species, such as those around
Langsett, Underbank and Strines Reservoirs,
may be vulnerable to pest and disease
outbreaks without increased diversification
of species. Therefore, the report further
identifies opportunities to improve the
structure and species diversity of the conifer
woodlands which are adjacent the reservoirs.
This work will improve the biodiversity,
landscape and recreational value of these
woodlands whilst making them more
resilient to external threats such as pests and
diseases and climate change.
Several new tree planting opportunities are
identified that will improve connectivity
between woodlands and complement flood
protection measures through natural flood
management.
As a longer-term measure there is
opportunity to engage with private
woodland owners in the Landscape
Partnership area. However, these
relationships will take an investment of
time to establish. The woodlands on the
Broomhead Estate in the Ewden Valley and
the Fitzwilliam Wentworth Estate above
Strines Reservoir offer similar opportunities
to the above.
40 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES & WOODLAND ASSESSMENT
Yorkshire Water, Sheffield
and Rotherham Wildlife
Trust and Sheffield City
Council all manage areas
of woodland in the Rivelin
Valley. Photo: R. Miller
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
41

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Understanding our ecology
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership area covers approximately
14500 hectares, with some 43% of
the area under wildlife or habitat
designation. The relevant designations
are detailed in Our Statement of
Significance.
An ecological baseline report for key
habitats and species priorities has been
provided by Wildscapes CIC Ltd to support
our understanding of the ecology of the
Sheffield Lakeland area. In particular
this work underpins the creation of the
Supporting Species project, but has also
guided the development of the Woodland
Heart and Working with Water projects.
The following section provides an extract
from that report and the full version,
including habitat survey results and
detailed species status updates, can be
seen at Appendix 5.
Barn owl. Photo: Russell Hague
42
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Strategic recommendations for habitats
Natural Flood Risk
Management
Natural Flood Risk Management, (NFM),
will be a key aim of the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership to help alleviate future
flood risk for the city of Sheffield, reducing
the need for large scale engineering solutions
which often result in detrimental effects
to the natural watercourse. In addition to
eco-system services benefits, NFM offers
opportunities for biodiversity enhancement
and meets many of the conservation
objectives for species included within the
Supporting Species and Working with Water
projects. These include:
Woodland Management
Sheffield City Council and Yorkshire Water
both hold large commercial plantation
woodlands within the Sheffield Lakeland
area. Both have developed independent
woodland management strategies based
around commercial timber production,
but also long-term recreation and species
conservation targets. The Woodland
Heart project proposed by the Landscape
Partnership offers an opportunity to plan
the management of woodland strategically
for both wildlife, recreation and commercial
interests.
• Woodland planting for water retention
• Restoring habitat features to hold winter
flows
• Influencing the management of, and
restoring peat bog.
Below: Wet grazing land is found above and
below the level of the reservoirs. Photo C. Watts
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
43

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Map of areas of woodland and designated wildlife sites in the Sheffield Lakeland area
44 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Baseline ecological conditions – habitats
Wildscapes approached Dr Ebru Ersoy for permission to utilise her detailed habitat survey plan and list of
habitats, (Ersoy, 2017), identifying the following habitats within the Landscape Partnership area:
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
45

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Detailed habitat survey -
baseline samples
In order to facilitate practical work under the
Sheffield Lakeland project four sites required
detailed ecological survey. These were:
• Midhope Reservoir
• Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve
• Agden Bog Nature Reserve
• Wyming Brook and Fox Hagg Nature
Reserve
Midhope Reservoir
Midhope Reservoir has been highlighted by
landowner Yorkshire Water as a target site
for biodiversity enhancement. Wildscapes
undertook a Phase 1 Habitat Survey
(Wildscapes CIC Ltd, 2017) of the site, the
full details of which are included within
Appendix 5.
The survey report identified a number
of key habitats, including a mosaic
of acid dry dwarf shrub heath, semiimproved
grassland, conifer plantation
and wetter acid flushes. Management
recommendations include controlling
invasive scrub, diversifying age profiles
within plantations and ensuring that open
areas are not invaded by invasive species
such as rhododendron and bracken. There
is an opportunity to provide further habitat
diversity through, for example, the addition
of new ponds in the wooded area.
Public access to the east of the site is by
way of a public footpath, but the south/west
of the site is only accessible informally. This
provides an opportunity to retain relative
seclusion for more disturbance sensitive
species in other parts of the site.
Recommendations for Midhope Reservoir biodiversity enhancement
46 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve
Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve National Vegetation Classification Plan, P Eades
Hammond’s Field is important in terms
of providing habitat for wading birds,
amphibians, and invertebrates such as
dragonflies. It is also an example of relatively
unimproved wet pasture of the moorland
fringe, and as such, supports vegetation
of the ‘Purple Moor-Grass & Rush Pasture’
Priority Habitat Type, (PHT). Other important
habitat types include small patches of acidic
fen and swamp, which are considered to be
forms of Lowland Fen PHT.
Right: Hammond’s field Nature Reserve has been
targeted for inclusion within the Supporting Species
water vole project. Photo: Guy Badham
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
47

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Agden Bog Nature Reserve
Agden Bog is particularly interesting
because of the juxtaposition of acidic basepoor
wetland vegetation and high pH baserich
wetland types. The site is underlain by
a mixture of Midgley Grit sandstone, and
mudstone, siltstone and sandstone of the
Millstone Grit Group, and a fault runs along
the centre of the valley. As a consequence,
the site supports a range of wetland plants,
some of which are quite scarce in this
area including acid loving sphagnum bogmosses
and base-rich fen species. The latter
is very uncommon in the Peak District and
is present at only one or two other sites
in the Sheffield area (Rickett’s Field, and
possibly Corker Walls). The nature reserve
also contains examples of species rich fen
meadow and wet heath.
Agden Bog is also important for a number
of locally scarce plant species. Many of these
are associated with the base-rich seepages
and adjacent flushed ground, including
butterwort, which has not been seen at the
site for some years. Also important are the
abundant bog asphodel, Sphagnum bogmosses,
cranberry and sundew that are
found on the upper bog area, and a patch
of common cow-wheat in an area of dry
woodland close to the main gate.
It is recommended that grazing the site
with hardy cattle in summer months at the
current intensity be continued and that
efforts be made to carry out regular scrub
control of birch and bramble in the bog
basin at the northern end of the site which
is not currently grazed. Bracken control may
be required in the future depending on the
results of future vegetation monitoring.
Below: Sundew at Agden Bog. Photo N. Abbas
48 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Plan to show Agden Bog Nature Reserve National Vegetation Classification, P Eades
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
49

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Wyming Brook and Fox Hagg Nature Reserve
A baseline survey was commissioned of Wyming Brook and Fox Hagg Nature Reserve
which showed the following habitat types.
Wyming Brook
nature reserve
habitat plan
Fox Hagg
nature reserve
habitat plan
50 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Photo Russell Hague
Small waterfalls are a popular
feature of Wyming Brook
Nature Reserve – for poets,
photographers and wildlife.
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
51

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Baseline Ecological Conditions – Species
Wildscapes looked in detail at the status
of the following species in the Sheffield
Lakeland area:
• Barn Owl
• Bats (various species)
• Goshawk
• Nightjar
• Osprey
• Otter
• Upland wading birds
• Water vole
• White clawed crayfish
• Woodland birds
Full reports into the status of each of
these the above species or species
groups are provided in Appendix 5.
The following section provides a precis
of the status of those species with the
greatest potential to benefit from the
work of Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership.
Barn Owl
Barn owl, Tyto alba, is an icon of the
traditional British farmed landscape. These
efficient hunters are often seen gliding
silently over rough grassland fields or field
margins, scouring the landscape for their
favoured prey of voles or mice. Their reliance
on this habitat and associated traditional
agricultural buildings historically left them
vulnerable in the era of modernised farming
methods.
National trends are positive, leading to the
species now being listed as ‘green’ status by
the RSPB. However, this is a recent success
story; populations underwent a decline of
25-50% up to 1990 as a result of changing
farming practices and illegal activity. The
population has declined more steeply
within the Sheffield area than nationally
and the local population was estimated to
be 8 to 15 pairs in 2008 (Wood & Hill, 2013).
Barn owl are known to be present in the
Sheffield Lakeland area. In particular, the
area around Low Bradfield is known to be a
successful breeding area. Threats within the
area include intensification of agricultural
practices and the conversion of traditional
stone barns to residential.
52 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Key habitat areas in the
Sheffield Lakeland area
for barn owl
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
53

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Bat Species
Bats are one of the more mysterious of the
UK fauna and much is still unknown about
their life cycle. Key mysteries remain with
regard to hibernation and mating sites and,
as shown by Alcothoe, Myotis alcothoe, it
is possible that there are still new species
waiting to be discovered.
the nationally scarce Brandt’s bat, as well
as significant hibernation and maternity
colonies of other species. Many woodland
and underground sites have never been
surveyed or assessed and it is possible
that other sites of regional or national
importance may exist.
Key threats to bats within the Sheffield
Lakeland area are:
• Roost destruction and roost loss
• Habitat fragmentation
• Lack of baseline data – which compounds
both the above issues.
Brown Long Eared Bat in hand, photo P. Liptrot
There are currently 18 bat species
considered native to the UK,
Ten species of bat have been recorded
within the Sheffield Lakeland area.
Building dwelling species such as common
pipistrelle are well recorded, however,
tree dwelling species and the cryptic bat
species, (whiskered/Brandt’s), are thought
likely to be under recorded. The South
Yorkshire Bat Group, through habitat
suitability modelling and targeted harp and
mist net trapping, have been attempting
to address this gap in knowledge and
establish reliable baseline data for the
majority of bat species.
The combination of the topography,
lowland woodland, water, natural and
man-made underground structures within
Sheffield Lakeland is unique within the
local area and lends itself to a variety of
bat species and the diversity of bat species
present is higher than the local surrounds
as a result. The area supports the only
known roost within South Yorkshire of
However, there are distinct opportunities
presented by the area, in particular the
knowledgeable and experienced volunteers
of the South Yorkshire Bat Group, (SYBG),
and the network of nationally and locally
designated wildlife sites present in the
Sheffield Lakeland area. SYBG undertook a
number of pilot survey projects during the
development phase, which are reported in
Appendix 5.
Volunteers from South Yorkshire Bat Group have
worked hard to pug gaps in knowledge about species
abundance through pilot projects carried out in the
development year. Photo K. Tomkins
54 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Habitat suitability for bat species in
the Sheffield Lakeland area
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
55

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Goshawk
Goshawk, Accipter gentilis, is a charismatic
and secretive raptor, reliant upon woodlands
and forestry plantation for hunting and
breeding sites. Goshawks were hunted to
extinction in the UK in the 19th century.
A national programme of reintroductions
(both deliberate and accidental) led to the
species return in the 1960s. The species
is currently considered to be of Green
conservation status by the RSPB.
The Peak District Raptor Monitoring Group
has been monitoring the species within the
SLLP area and immediate surrounds since
1994, (when 6 breeding pairs were recorded),
with the highest count of 11 breeding pairs in
1999. However, this was a temporary reprieve
with the population in the Sheffield area
declining rapidly in the early 2000s, (RSPB,
2006), and the final result being that it is
now thought that no breeding Goshawk are
to be found in the area.
While illegal persecution is cited as a
likely significant cause of their decline,
(RSPB, 2006), increased fragmentation
of woodland, disturbance as a result of
increased leisure activity and unsympathetic
management of commercial forestry
woodland may also be factors.
Goshawk, Photo N. Kenntner
56 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Key habitat types for
goshawk within the
Sheffield Lakeland area
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
57

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Nightjar
Nightjar, Caprimulgus europaeus, are an
elusive nocturnal bird, more likely to be
heard than seen with their unique call
rolling out over their preferred habitats of
lowland heath or young forestry plantation.
Nightjars are protected under Annex 1 of the
European Commission Wild Birds Directive
and listed as ‘amber’ on the British Red
Data List for Birds. Nationally, populations
are thought to be recovering as a result of
commercial clear fell forestry increasing
the availability of suitable nesting habitat
(Morris, et al., 1994).
Habitat creation for Nightjar is in clear
conflict with that of the Goshawk (which
prefer mature and over mature conifer
plantations). In order to ensure there is
sufficient habitat variety within the Sheffield
Lakeland area, it is necessary to ensure that
both species are treated as a priority for
forestry management.
In addition to this, forestry management
suitable for nightjar can often suffer from
poor public perception, as it often requires
clear-felling mature conifer woodland which
can look drastic within the landscape.
Nightjar (Neil Aldridge)
58 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Key Habitat types for
nightjar in the Sheffield
Lakeland area
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
59

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Osprey
Osprey, Pandion haliaetus, are magnificent
birds which capture the public imagination
when they arrive each summer to breed in
the UK. Ospreys are ‘amber’ listed, (RSPB),
within the UK with only 200-250 breeding
pairs known nationally, the majority of
which are in Scotland and Wales. Hunted
to extinction in the UK in the 1800s, the
population first began to return to Scotland
from Scandinavia in the 1950s. The
species is expanding its territory through
a combination of increased animal and
habitat protections, and reintroductions.
However, to date osprey have only been
seen to fly over the Sheffield Lakeland area
during migration between summer nesting
sites to the north and wintering grounds to
the south.
The Peak District Raptor Monitoring Group,
(PDRMG), has confirmed that whilst the
fish populations of the reservoirs in the
Sheffield Lakeland area are unlikely to be
sufficient to support a breeding pair alone,
when taken together with the larger fish
populations at the Ladybower complex
to the west, the sites should be sufficient
to support a nesting pair of osprey. In this
scenario, the less disturbed nature of the
sites within the Sheffield Lakeland area
could make a nesting site at this location
more favoured than one on Ladybower.
Osprey. Photo J. Rogerson
60 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Waterbodies within the
Sheffield Lakeland area
and beyond
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
61

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Water Vole
The water vole, Arvicola amphibious, is
an icon of the traditional UK countryside,
its literary status secured by its place as
Ratty in Kenneth Graham’s The Wind in
the Willows. However, the species itself
is at severe risk of disappearing from the
landscape entirely. In Sheffield the trend
is similar to the national status and water
voles are currently extinct within all but the
most isolated upland sites where mink have
not yet colonised.
Two of the remaining known Sheffield sites
for water vole are within the Landscape
Partnership area: a population in ditch
systems in moorland leading into Langsett
Reservoir in the north and a population
around Redmires Reservoir in the south
of the area. Both populations are on the
moorland and are likely to be surviving as a
result of mink populations being unable to
establish in the area.
Three main threats exist for the remaining
populations within the Sheffield Lakeland
area:
• The continued expansion of mink territory
• Change in land management regime
• Habitat disturbance as a result of
increased recreational activity
There are a number of opportunities
presented by the SLLP. Yorkshire Water are
a key partner within the project and have
already taken steps towards securing the
water vole habitat at Redmires, agreeing to
the installation of fencing to prevent dog
access into the channel mentioned above.
The Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust’s
reserve Hammond’s Field is within 100m of
one of the main populations at Redmires.
As this is a reserve not widely used by the
public, it offers an ideal opportunity for the
creation of expansion habitat away from
recreational impact. The wider project,
through Natural Flood Risk management
and wildlife friendly management of water
courses, also provides improved habitat for
the re-colonisation of water vole, should a
means of reversing the national population
decline ever be discovered.
Water voles are herbivores living in colonies along river
banks, usually in burrows but have also been known
to weave nests in reeds and other vegetation. Where
present, the species can be regularly seen by the public
as they are active during the day. Photo Guy Badham
62 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Records of water vole within the Sheffield Lakeland area
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
63

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Woodland birds
The consultants considered the potential
for woodland bird species including pied
flycatcher, Ficedula hypoleuca, spotted
flycatcher, Muscicapa striata, and willow
tit, Poecile montanus. which are all key
conservation target species for the Forestry
Commission (Broome, et al., 2017) and the
RSPB.
The Landscape Partnership area contains
a significant proportion of the Sheffield
region’s woodland at 2616 hectares, including
commercially managed conifer plantations
and designated wildlife sites – this forms a
key connective habitat for wildlife.
Willow tit and the two flycatchers have
been identified as indicator species for
work undertaken as part of the Woodland
Heart project.
Willow tit. Photo A Jones
64 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Key habitats for woodland birds within the Sheffield Lakeland area
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
65

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
“The historic environment ranges in
date from the early prehistoric period,
through the Romano-British and
medieval periods, to the post-medieval
and modern eras.”
66 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
Understanding our archaeology and heritage resource
“The historic environment reflects
continuity and change across the
survey area, which has been influenced
by the management of water, whether
for settlement, industry or creation of
reservoirs,” ECUS, 2017
A report into the archaeology and built
heritage resources of the Sheffield Lakeland
area was provided in 2017 by specialist
consultancy ECUS Ltd. The following section
provides an extract from that report and
the full version can be seen at Appendix 6.
Heritage Assessment including Woodland
Archaeology
A desk-based assessment considered
evidence recorded by Historic England,
South Yorkshire Sites and Monuments
Record, (SYSMR), the Historic Environment
Record, (DHER), and the Historic
Environment Character of the area, (SYAS
2013). This provided for a broad overview
of the heritage resources recorded within
the Sheffield Lakeland area. A thematic
approach, as follows was utilised:
• Prehistoric
• Find spots
• Water Management
• Industry
• Transport
• Land Use
• Settlement
• Military
The report found that the Sheffield
Lakeland landscape comprises a wealth
of diverse and extensive heritage assets
reflecting a wide range of elements
of the historic environment, including
archaeological remains, historic buildings
and settlements, and historic landscapes.
The historic environment ranges in date
from the early prehistoric period, through
the Romano-British and medieval periods,
to the post-medieval and modern eras.
The regional and national significance
of some of these heritage assets is
reflected in their statutory designation of
national importance (listed buildings and
scheduled monuments).
The historic environment reflects the
continuity and change across the survey
area which has been influenced by
the management of water, whether
for settlement, industry or creation
of reservoirs. The potential for further
research to reveal heritage of at least
regional importance relating to the historic
settlement and local vernacular, historic
route ways, land use, industrial remains,
military and water management was
clearly apparent. These opportunities were
categorised into four values which are
described in more detail overleaf.
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
67

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
Historical Value
• Survival of well-preserved
prehistoric remains that include
scheduled monuments.
• Creation, design and planning of
the reservoirs within the landscape
and displacement of historic
settlement, transport and land use.
• Built heritage remains relating to
industrial heritage.
• Land use reflecting changes in
unenclosed and enclosed land as
well as historical woodland areas.
• Survival of well-preserved medieval
and post-medieval buildings,
especially historic farmsteads.
Aesthetic Value
• Creation of water bodies through
dams and reservoirs within the
landscape and how the landscape
is now experienced.
• Historic land use and landscape
character linked to topography
produces a fortuitous aesthetic of
upland areas, steep valleys and rural
agrarian landscapes on the edge of
a major conurbation.
• The local vernacular of building
materials in rural settlement and
rural settlement pattern.
Evidential Value
• Distribution of prehistoric find-spots
indicating the extent of prehistoric
activity across the landscape.
• Landscape of past human activity
represented by find spots and stray
finds from the Romano-British to
modern era.
• Construction of reservoirs and
associated construction infrastructure
(temporary construction camps).
Communal Value
• Creation of water bodies within
the landscape that are valued by
people as a source of relaxation or
interaction with the landscape.
• Historic settlements are still
centres of communities whether
villages, hamlets or farmsteads.
• Association of ‘living’ or social
history with historic environment
such as military remains.
• Archaeological remains relating to
industrial processes or extraction and
interaction with water management.
• Potential for archaeological
remains to survive relating to
modern era military remains and
the defence of Britain.
68 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
Chronology
The area has produced extensive evidence
for a long history of occupation, with every
period from the Mesolithic to the present
day represented within the SYSMR and
DHER data. It has been suggested for the
Upper Derwent Valley, located to the west
of the survey area, that the Mesolithic
represents the first period of regular human
activity within the wider landscape (Bevan
2004: 5, 2007: 10; Hey 2014: 23). There is
no archaeological evidence for activity
predating the Mesolithic within the survey
area whilst the subsequent periods of
prehistory are well represented by finds
pots and monuments such as barrows,
cairns and earthworks.
There is some evidence for Romano-British
activity within and in the vicinity of the
survey area, with the route of a Roman
road located within the southern portion
of the study area, running between the fort
of Navio (Brough on Noe, Derbyshire) to
the west and Templeborough to the east.
Romano-British industrial activity is best
represented by the site of the quernstone
quarry at Wharncliffe (Scheduled
Monument; NHLE: 1004802) located just
outside the north eastern boundary of the
study area to the east of the River Don.
There is very little documentary or
archaeological evidence for early medieval
activity in and around Sheffield (Hey
2003b: 25). Evidence of occupation in South
Yorkshire is limited, although analysis of
place names such as Bradfield, (broad
treeless area), and remains such as the
tenth century Bradfield Cross do suggest
early medieval occupation within the
Sheffield Lakeland area and that some form
of settlement was present at Bradfield prior
to the Norman Conquest.
Early Medieval Cross thought to be 10th century, now
relocated to the Church of St Nicholas High Bradfield,
photo: Mick Knapton, https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:Saxon_cross,_high_bradfield_church.jpg
It is likely that the entry of Hallam within
Domesday is a reference to the whole area
of Hallamshire (Hey 2003a: 29; Hey 2003b:
22-3). The vast majority of the survey area
was located within the chapelry of Bradfield,
which was within the parish of Ecclesfield
during the medieval period, and formed
part of the area known as Hallamshire,
along with the chapelry of Sheffield and
Ecclesfield parish itself (Hey 2003a: 30).
Most settlements within the survey area at
Bradfield, Langsett and Stannington had
been established by the end of the twelfth
century (Hay 2003b: 26-7). The medieval
period also provides the earliest known
evidence of water power being utilised
within the survey area as is shown by the
corn mill at Low Bradfield (SYSMR Ref:
01642/01).
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
69

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
The post-medieval period saw the
continued increase in use of water power
along the rivers within the survey area,
especially along the routes of the Rivelin
and Loxley rivers in the southeast. The
landscape also went through significant
changes with the enclosure of the moors at
the end of the eighteenth and beginning
of the nineteenth centuries. The landscape
was further changed through the creation
of reservoirs throughout the survey area to
provide drinking water to the expanding
industrial city of Sheffield from the 1830’s
into the early twentieth century.
Woodland archaeology
Following the ECUS Survey above and
because of the amount of potential
intrusive management work that will arise
out of the Woodland Heart project, a field
assessment of woodlands was undertaken
during the winter of 2017 (report).
The woodland surveys identified a total
of 133 individual or groups of features
within the 24 woodland parcels. Only a
single site, Yew Trees Lane (SK 2654 9632)
was found to not contain any identifiable
archaeological features. The majority
of the sites have previously been used as
agricultural land and consequently the vast
majority of the identified features can be
attributed to former land boundaries within
the post-medieval field systems prior to the
establishment of the woodlands during the
mid-twentieth century. It is recommended
that any future forestry works attempt to
preserve these features wherever it is feasible.
The surveys did identify a number of heritage
assets of at least regional significance.
Alongside the southern boundary of White
Lee Moor is a Grade II Listed guide pillar
(NHLE: 1192353) and although this designated
heritage asset is unlikely to be impacted by
affected by any future forestry works it is
considered that care must be taken to ensure
that this feature is not damaged.
Other sites of regional significance include
the structural remains of the World War
Two Redmires prisoner of war camp within
Redmires Camp and the sites of postmedieval
houses including Wigtwizzle Hall,
Lords Seat and Rocher End. These sites are all
located within their individual woodlands and
careful management is required to ensure
these assets are not significantly affected by
any future forestry works.
Guide Pillar. Photo: Nabil Abbas
70 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
Settlements
The current settlement character areas
are concentrated in the southeast and
northeast of the survey area. These areas
of settlement comprise the northwest
outskirts of Sheffield and Oughtibridge
to the southeast, and Stocksbridge in
the northeast of the survey area. There
are other smaller areas of settlement
such as Bradfield, Midhopestones and
Bolsterstone located throughout the survey
area. The SYSMR and DHER record a total
of 253 heritage assets which have been
characterised within the settlement theme.
This includes 244 Listed Buildings and 3
Scheduled Monuments.
There is some Romano-British settlement
evidence to the northeast of the Landscape
Partnership boundary, including at Finkle
Street (Scheduled Monument; NHLE:
1004801). The location of Romano-British
settlement evidence is in proximity to
the extensive Romano-British quarrying
activity at Wharncliffe Rocks. Evidence for
early medieval settlement is limited to the
location of Anglo-Saxon crosses such as at
Bradfield.
Settlement within the survey area during
the medieval and early post-medieval
periods was in keeping with the rural
character of the landscape. This is
demonstrated by the large number of
agricultural buildings recorded by both
the SYSMR and DHER from these periods.
For example, a total of 93 cruck-framed
buildings which include farmhouses,
cottages and barns are recorded within the
study area, and include a Grade II* Listed
Building and 16 Grade II Listed Buildings.
St James Church at Midhopestones, dates from 1337.
Photo: Mick Knapton, https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File:St_James_church,_Midhopestones.JPG SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
71

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
The later post-medieval and modern records
within the settlement theme demonstrate
the expansion of Sheffield westwards.
In addition to the chronological
development of the settlement patterns,
the recorded heritage assets allow further
insights into the forms of settlement within
the study area. For example, elite settlement
is represented by the medieval castles at
Bradfield (Scheduled Monuments; NHLE:
1013217, 1017612) and Bolsterstone (SYSMR Ref:
00143/01), whilst the development of religion
can be traced through buildings such as
the Church of St Nicholas (Grade I Listed,
NHLE: 1192617) and Church of St. James
at Midhopestones (Grade ll* Listed), and
the non-conformist Loxley United Reform
Church (Grade II* Listed; NHLE: 1314565), or
John Wesley preaching at Brightholmlee
Methodist Chapel and the record of local
Quaker families in the Bowcroft Cemetery.
The diminutive church of St James at
Midhopestones, dates from 1337 when it was
established as a chapel of ease for the main
church of St Mary in Ecclesfield. The much
larger church of St Nicholas in High Bradfield
was not established until the 15th century.
The trans-Pennine routes between Sheffield
and Manchester, (A616 and A57), follow
earlier trading routes, but do not represent
the bulk of historical east-west routes.
Historic trading routes are distinct in the
area and the history and legacy of guide
stoops is strong. A number of these guide
stoops are listed and significant landmarks
within the landscape.
In addition, the dispersed population of
parishes resulted in traditional routes to
the few parish centres, now known as
‘coffin roads’. Running across the valleys, is
Mortimer Road. This was named after Hans
Mortimer, Lord of Bamford and Member
of Parliament who obtained an Act of
Parliament in 1771 to improve the bridleway
between Penistone and Bamford by
repairing, widening and building bridges to
make it fit for wheeled traffic. It remains a
small but significant route for those wishing
to travel north-south across the valleys.
The Church of St Nicholas, Bradfield. Photo Russell Hague
72
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
Understanding our Industrial Heritage
The Rivelin Valley
Until the 20th century the River Rivelin
formed the north-western boundary of
Sheffield. The Rivelin Valley has been
occupied from at least Roman times and a
tablet discovered in 1761 records the granting
of land to retiring Roman auxiliaries of the
Sunuci tribe. In Medieval times, the Rivelin
Valley formed part of Rivelin Chase, hunting
grounds for the Lords of Hallamshire.
From the medieval period the power of the
river was harnessed first for corn mills and later
for metal working including scythes, knives,
razors, cutlery and anvils. It is thought that the
anvil at Gretna Green was made at Mousehole
Forge in the Valley. At its height there were
20 mills working the river, although most had
closed or converted to electricity by the 1920s,
some carried on production in the traditional
way until the 1950s.
The Loxley Valley
The first mills were set up on the River Loxley
in the mid-17th century and were a mixture
of forging and rolling mills. In contrast with
the Rivelin Valley, the Loxley retains more
evidence of mill workings, with mill wheels
still in place at Malin Corn Mill, Little Matlock
(Grade II*) and Olive Mill (currently being
incorporated into a residential conversion).
A stone marker indicates the acceptable
height of water to ensure that no user took
more than their fair share.
Although for the most part the mill workings
no-longer exist, the ponds and mill races
do (known locally as ‘goits’). These form a
valuable wildlife and recreational resource
and have been interpreted by the Rivelin
Valley Conservation Group. Together they
create a popular nature trail leading up the
Rivelin Valley from the city at Malin Bridge to
the wider countryside beyond.
Water level marker stone showing agreement between
mill owners dated 1825, Photo K. Tomkins
A View of Rivelin Edge, Photo: Andrew Stringer
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
73

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
However, compared to the Rivelin Valley there
is very little interpretation of these heritage
features and despite the fact that the Loxley
Valley provides an attractive riverside walk,
it is relatively less discovered than the Rivelin
Valley.
During the 1800s the Loxley Valley became
an important producer of refractory bricks for
the expanding Sheffield steel industry, using
a locally mined ganister clay. Ganister mines
were worked locally to supply firms which
became international businesses – Marshalls,
Hepworths and Dysons. However, the demise
of the British steel industry and changes in
steel making technology led to the close of
the valley’s brick works in the 1990s.
Dysons Chimney – an iconic landmark in
Stannington was demolished in 2017, to
make way for a housing development. Other
refractory sites in the Loxley Valley remain
vacant pending new use and give this part of
the valley a sense of dereliction.
“People in
Sheffield don’t
understand
how important
the rivers were,
Sheffield wouldn’t
be here without
them.”
Quote from a local resident
Abandoned works buildings in the Loxley Valley, Photo K. Tomkins
74 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
The ‘Steel Valley’, looking up the Little Don valley towards Stocksbridge from Wharncliffe Crags. Photo C. Prescott
The Little Don Valley – the Steel Valley
The development of Stocksbridge as a
major settlement did not take place until
the second half of the nineteenth century,
later than the establishment of industry
along the Rivelin and the Loxley.
However industrial heritage in the Upper
Don extends back to the beginning of
metal extraction, with early iron age settlers
making using the updraught of prevailing
westerly wind up the steep cloughs to
provide sufficient ‘blast’ to extract iron
from iron ore in simple clay built furnaces.
These sites are known as Bloomery Sites
and can be found in a number of locations
in the Don Catchment. The remains of slag
spoil in the substrate can help to identify
the location of Bloomery sites, however
much of this was repurposed during the
18th century as surfacing for the increasing
network of pack horse trails.
Stocksbridge traces its modern day metal
working history back to Samuel Fox in
1842, when he purchased and converted
a cotton mill to a wire mill. While heavy
industry predominantly migrated from the
valleys of Sheffield Lakeland into Sheffield
itself, Stocksbridge retained and expanded
its steel-making capacity and continues
to host a significant steel works, Liberty
Steel, producing high-end products for the
aerospace and oil/gas industry.
Stocksbridge steel works old Victorian building
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
75

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
Understanding our Cultural Associations
Robin Hood
Loxley is one of the locations claimed as
the birthplace of Robin Hood. The earliest
reference is by John Harrison in his Exact
and Perfect Survey and View of the Manor
of Sheffield in 1637, claims that Robin of
Locksley or Robert Locksley was born
in the area in 1160 at a location which is
modern day Rodney Hill. However, it was
Sir Walter Scott’s 1820 novel Ivanhoe, which
established the strongest connection
between Robin Hood and Loxley Chase,
making Robin of Loxley a figure of popular
legend. The Robin Hood pub in Loxley now
commemorates the story and Robin Hoods
Cave can be found on Loxley and Wadsley
Common.
Other local legends include the Wadsley
Werewolf and Wantley Dragon.
Ebenezer Elliot – The Corn
Law Rhymer
Ebenezer Elliott was born in 1781 and
is most well known as the ‘Corn Law
Rhymer’, using poetry to campaign for the
repeal of the Corn Laws and highlighting
the hardships endured by workers in
Sheffield’s mills and foundries. However
much of his poetry takes inspiration from
the west Sheffield landscape before the
development of the reservoirs – in particular
the Rivelin and Loxley Valleys. Even in his
more political verse, he interweaves his love
of nature and nostalgia for a lost rural way
of life with his criticism of the hated ‘bread
tax’, using the beauty of the landscape as
a foil to contrast with the brutality of life
for working people. Some poems also refer
to the cultural impact of the economic
migration of workers from Scotland to the
growing steel works.
RIBBLEDIN
No name hast thou! lone streamlet
That lovest Rivilin.
Here, if a bard may christen thee,
I’ll call thee ‘Ribbledin;’
Here, where first murmuring from
thine urn,
Thy voice deep joy expresses;
And down the rock, like music,
flows
The wildness of thy tresses.
Above: A poem about an unnamed tributary of the
Rivelin (extracts from a longer poem).
Top: Statue of Ebenezer Elliott, Weston Park, Sheffield,
Photo Terry Robinson https://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Ebenezer_Elliott_Statue_
and_Information_Board.jpg
76 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
The Great Sheffield Flood
The Great Sheffield Flood of 1864 claimed
the lives of at least 240 people, destroyed
600 homes and left more than 5,000 homes
and businesses under water. Many people
are thought to have died subsequently as a
result of disease. The flood occurred when
the newly constructed Dale Dike Dam in
Bradfield Dale breached as it was filling for
the first time.
The highest loss of life was at Malin Bridge,
which at that time was a small village six
miles downstream from the dam, where 102
people were killed, however the settlements
of Bradfield, Damflask, Little Matlock and
Loxley were all severely affected. Damflask
village was never reconstructed and now lies
below the Damflask Reservoir.
The Great Sheffield Flood still stands as one
of the worst civilian losses of life in a single
event and the dam’s failure led to reforms in
engineering practice, setting standards that
needed to be met when constructing largescale
structures. However, the story is little
known outside of Sheffield and surrounding
area. In 2015, a Daily Mail article claimed that
‘one of Britain’s worst disasters has been
largely forgotten because the dead were
northern and working-class.’ (Daily Mail,
March 26th 2015). A memorial was erected at
the re-built Dale Dike reservoir as part of the
commemoration of the 150th anniversary
of the disaster, however there is nothing to
mark the tragedy at Malin Bridge.
Source: Wikipedia, 2018
Below: A series of stones, like the one below mark the
line of the old Dale Dike dam. Photo C. Watts
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
77

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
Samuel Fox
Samuel Fox was born in Bradwell in
Derbyshire in 1815. After completing
his apprenticeship as a wire drawer in
Hathersage, he established his own water
powered wire works in the Rivelin Valley.
Success here led him in 1842 to take over
an old water powered mill in the Little Don
Valley above ‘Stock’s Bridge’ (which was
then just a stone bridge across the river).
Initially, Fox produced wire for the wool
industry, but quickly saw the opportunity of
new markets in producing wire for crinoline
skirts and umbrella frames. Although not
the first to manufacture umbrella ribs
from steel, Fox mastered the technique of
producing fine, light weight steel ribs to
a consistent standard, making a fortune
from his patented Paragon Umbrella. The
nearest railway station was at Deepcar,
about a mile from the works and Samuel
Fox and Company invested in new rail links
to his growing steel works, expanding the
business to include heavy engineered steel
as well as specialist wire products.
Samuel Fox was a substantial benefactor
to the Stocksbridge area – his legacy
included schools, parks, churches and
chapels. Fox Glen was gifted to the
people of Stocksbridge by Samuel Fox
in 1911 when this former industrial site
was converted into a public park. The
site is iconic in Stocksbridge and is well
remembered by the older generations for
its former facilities, with paddling pools
and a bandstand, where performances
were held until recent years.
In 2016, a new retail development built
partially on the site of the former steel
yard was named Fox Valley in memory of
Samuel Fox.
Fox Glen has traditionally been the focus of community
celebrations. This image shows a Sheffield Carols event held in
2011, Photo Steel Valley Project.
78 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
Intangible Heritage
Place Names
The early history of habitation in the
Sheffield Lakeland area can be seen in
its place names, field names and names
of lanes. This section is indebted to the
research of Prof Mel Jones, The Making of
Sheffield, Wharncliffe Press, 2013.
The only places named in the Doomsday
Book are Holdworth (Halda’s Enclosure,
Anglo-Saxon), above the Loxley Valley,
Ughill (Ugga’s Hill, Old Norse) and Onesacre
(A hybrid of the Old Norse name ‘An’ and
the Old English suffix ‘aecer’ meaning ‘An’s
plot of cultivated land’).
Place names suggest that many of the
other settlements in Sheffield Lakeland
pre-date the Norman Conquest, but were
not seen as significant enough to be
recorded. For example:
‘Denu’
Agden (Oak Valley), Ewden (Yew Valley),
Dwarriden (Dwarf Valley) all share the
Old English suffix ‘denu’ meaning a long,
curving, narrow valley.
The area’s most unusual place name
‘Wigtwizzle’, which was immortalised
during the 2014 Tour de France as ‘Le côte
de Wigtwizzle’, derives from the Old English
‘-twisla’ meaning the confluence of two
streams and refers to ‘Wicga’s river fork’.
Norman French can be seen in the naming
of Rocher rocks above Bradfield, lending
credence to local belief that a Norman
fortification once stood on Bailey Hill.
Anglo Saxon
Stannington, Holdworth, Dungworth,
Sugworth
Old English
Loxley ‘Locc’s Clearing’
Bradfield ‘Broad treeless area’
Viking
Storrs – from the Old Norse ‘Storth’,
meaning a wood
The extent that the landscape was still
wooded during this period can be seen
from these place names.
The character of the river valleys is also
described by their names:
The elite cyclists of Le Tour were tested by Sheffield
Lakeland’s Cote de Ewden Heights and Cote de
Wigtwizzle. Photo T. Bagshaw
‘Hop’
Old English for a small enclosed
valley – and is seen in Midhope and
Midhopestones
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
79

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
Local Traditions
[Our report]…highlights the important role that the area’s
schools can … play in introducing children to the area’s
performance traditions. Watts et al, 2013
In 2013, the East Peak Innovation
Partnership (EPIP) commissioned a report in
the health of local traditions. The East Peak
boundary fully overlaps with the Sheffield
Lakeland area and this section is drawn
from that report.
The report identified that a wide range of
performance tradition is alive and well in
the Sheffield Lakeland area as can be seen
in the following diagram. Many traditions
remain a strong feature of the area and
form an important part of the area’s
character and calendar.
The strongest elements are the brass
bands, choirs and tradition of local carols
and mummers plays at Christmas. The
distinctive carol tradition of the local
area is a key feature, with the names of
carols in some cases reflecting local place
names e.g. Spout Cottage or Malin Bridge.
Dungworth, Worrall, Wharncliffeside, Lodge
Moor and Oughtibridge within Sheffield
Lakeland all host carol events at local pubs
with each community maintaining its own
mini-tradition – using subtly different words
or musical arrangements to create their
local identity.
The Sheffield Lakeland area also has a
thriving brass band scene, some with origins
in the Temperance movement – Loxley
Silver Band, Stannington, Oughtibridge
Sheffield local carols tradition - each community maintains
its own carol tradition with slight variations in words and
tunes between different villages and sometimes even
between different pubs. Photo: Soundpost
80 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT (INC. WOODLAND ARCHAEOLOGY)
and Deepcar Brass Bands. However, other
church-based traditions such as Whit Walks
and Whit Sings are all but gone, and other
traditions which were distinct to the area,
such as Cakin Neet, have been subsumed
into nationally homogenous celebrations
such as Halloween.
The report highlighted the importance of
getting children and teenagers involved
in performance traditions in order to keep
them alive. Brass bands are particularly
strong at bringing children into the
tradition, with several training bands and
a couple of dedicated youth bands in the
area. Similarly, the children’s traditional
dance and handbell teams and youth choirs
found in the area are helping to perpetuate
these traditions.
However, the report identified that the
importance of key adult individuals in
driving such children’s activities cannot be
overstated, and the loss of a single individual
can have a major impact on the continued
involvement of children in these traditions.
Such key adults often have links with the
school system, which also highlights the
important role that the area’s schools can
and could play in introducing children to the
area’s performance traditions.
The importance of key venues, particularly
pubs, in supporting many folk traditions is also
worthy of note. Folk song, music and dance
traditions are often focussed around the area’s
pubs, with a handful of pubs such as the Royal
at Dungworth standing out as a key hub for
activity. The marked decline in the number of
pubs in recent years, and an increase in the
number of ‘chain’ pubs, only increases the
importance of those venues which continue to
support performance traditions.
Below: The brass band tradition remains exceptionally
strong in the area. Photo T. Bagshaw
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
81

ACCESS & GATEWAY ASSESSMENT
Sheffield – Cyclists enjoying the
Outdoor City. Photo T. Bagshaw
Barriers to the landscape:
“I don’t know where to go.” 283 (29%)
“I’m not sure what I’m allowed to do there.”
170 (17%)
ORRG Survey, 2017
82
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ACCESS & GATEWAY ASSESSMENT
Understanding Access to Heritage
An analysis of the opportunities and barriers
for access to heritage and recreation in the
Sheffield Lakeland area was undertaken
by Sheffield Hallam University’s Outdoor
Recreation Research Group (ORRG). The
following section is an extract from that
report and the full report and survey
results can be seen at Appendix 7. ORRG
received over a 1000 completed survey
forms painting a comprehensive picture of
patterns of access and barriers to access in
the Sheffield Lakeland area.
Barriers to the landscape:
• I don’t know where to go 283 (29%)
• I’m not sure what I’m allowed to
do there 170 (17%)
ORRG Survey, 2017
Areas to the south and west of the
Sheffield Lakeland area, have a long
tradition of access, either because they
have been owned by organisations
such as the National Trust or because of
accommodating landowners providing
voluntary access agreements, particularly
in the Peak District National Park. Tourism
opportunities and businesses have
developed as a result. But much of the
land around local reservoirs in the Sheffield
Lakeland area has either been owned by
private landowners (most often used for
grouse shooting and sheep farming), or by
water companies which, in the past, did not
particularly encourage recreation to their
catchment areas or to the water itself.
This has now changed. Recreational ‘honey
pot’ sites are developing, particularly
associated with the main reservoirs –
Langsett, Damflask and Redmires. The 2002
Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW)
Act provided a right of open access to
uncultivated land - particularly affecting the
moorland in the area (although it will take
many more years for a tradition of using
these rights to develop fully). Perhaps most
significantly, the water company - Yorkshire
Water - now actively promotes recreation on
its own land and on and around (some of)
its reservoirs in the area with guided walk
routes, upgraded footpaths and dedicated
recreational access web-pages.
The awe-inspiring landscapes around Langsett Reservoir
gave the area a nick-name which stuck – ‘North America’
as it reminded GI’s of home. Photo C. Watts
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
83

ACCESS & GATEWAY ASSESSMENT
The pattern of recreation in the programme
area falls largely in to two categories.
• Visitors travelling (largely by car) to ‘honey
pot’ sites, such as Langsett, Bradfield and
Redmires, where there is known visitor
infrastructure - specifically car parking, but
also information provision, refreshment
facilities, etc. Visitors often stay close
to these hubs, or undertake various
recreational routes, walking, running
and cycling, and some horse riding. Dog
walking is particularly popular. These sites
are relatively well-known and promoted
online, as well as by word of mouth, as they
all lie in the Peak District National Park.
• Local residents accessing the area ‘close
to where they live’, via access points
largely associated with the main river
valleys. Examples include Malin Bridge in
the Rivelin and Loxley valleys, Loxley and
Wadsley Common, and the various access
points to the south west of Stocksbridge.
These access points are much used by dog
walkers, local ramblers, horse riders and
runners, and access from home is often
on foot, although some sites are well
served by local public transport.
Sheffield is well known as a city for outdoor
recreation enthusiasts with much of
this activity taking place in the Sheffield
Lakeland area. Road and fell running and on
and off road cycle racing have found major
challenges in the Lakeland Landscape,
including le Tour de France, the Percy Pud
challenge and The Steel Valley Ride.
The importance of other outdoor interests
should not be underestimated, for example
the draw of bird watching, sailing (Damflask
and Moorhall) and rowing (Damflask) and
fly-fishing (More Hall). The Sheffield Canoe
club has a white-water training facility on
the Don at Oughtibridge. Coarse fishing is
important on the mill-ponds in the Rivelin
and Loxley Valleys and rock climbing had
its beginnings in the Sheffield area, with
Wharncliffe Crags the focus.
Using Monitoring
Engagement
with the Natural
Environment (MENE)
data – the following
map shows the
usage of Stockbridge
by people from
the surrounding
area and the larger
distances travelled
to access Bradfield,
Loxley, Rivelin and
Redmires.
Natural England,
2015
84 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ACCESS & GATEWAY ASSESSMENT
Recreational access survey findings
Surveys took place between October and
December 2017. This was a mixture of on
site surveys, 1 to 1 surveys at community
events (such as Christmas fairs, sporting
events) and an online survey which was
targeted at non-users as well as regular
visitors to the landscape. A total of 1026
surveys were completed providing a
comprehensive overview of recreational
access in the Sheffield Lakeland area.
The graph below illustrates that various
forms of walking and eating out are the
most popular leisure activities in the SLLP
area. Walking more than two miles (68%),
walking less than two miles (43%) and
dog walking (37%) are within the top five
most popular activities. Eating / drinking
out (45%) and picnicking (28%) also also
within the top five. Running (both road
19% and off-road / trail 26%) and cycling
(both road and off-road 22%) are also
highly popular activities, with wildlife and
bird watching and history and heritage
also popular. Respondents also cited using
the area for: horse riding (12%), climbing
(6%), watersports (2%), fishing (2%) and
motorised sports (1%).
How often do you use / visit any parts of the SLLP
area for leisure or recreation?
What kinds of leisure and recreation have you used / visited the Sheffield Lakeland area for?
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
85

ACCESS & GATEWAY ASSESSMENT
Barriers to Heritage Access
In terms of barriers to using the natural
environment / local landscape, there is
a clear distinction between people who
already access these areas who do not
experience any barriers which prevent
them from doing so, and those which
are affected by a lack of information /
awareness and clarity on where to go
and what to do. The data identifies clear
areas where the SLLP project could focus
on improving information and signage,
along with other areas which require
infrastructural improvements (including a
lack of suitable paths in some areas and
transportation issues).
The two greatest barriers are related to a
lack of information and understanding:
• I don’t know where to go 283 (29%)
• I’m not sure what I’m allowed to do
there 170 (17%)
The graph below shows how female
respondent identified significantly more
barriers to accessing the landscape than
male respondents.
Gateways to Heritage Access
It is evident from the survey data that there
are several factors relating to increasing
confidence in people’s abilities to visit the
local countryside that, if addressed, could
have a positive impact on participation rates.
These range from physical improvements to
footpath accessibility to informational access
through better availability of easy to follow
walking routes. Despite the increasingly
prominence of smart phones and GPS
devices, the survey question asking which
methods people commonly used to help
plan their routes showed a mix of different
methods are still utilised with paper still
featuring as a preferred choice for many.
A further survey question also found that
fear of getting lost was a significant barrier
and 178 out of the 1,026 respondents,
(17%), were potentially interested in events
/ sessions relating to map reading and
improving their navigational skills.
What are the main things that stop you from visiting the Sheffield Lakeland area for?
86
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

ACCESS & GATEWAY ASSESSMENT
Sheffield suffers considerable health
inequalities, particularly childhood obesity
and Type 2 Diabetes. The benefits of accessing
green space for health and wellbeing are well
documented and increasingly recognised in
mainstream policies.
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
87

Dr Jenny Stephenson.
AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC REVIEW
Understanding our opportunities to engage with communities
The SLLP can look to add value by
leading specific initiatives designed
to promote health and wellbeing.
The findings of the 5 Ways to Wellbeing
should be taken into considerations
when planning activities.
Waymark Ltd, 2018
An assessment of the potential for engaging
local communities and new audiences
with the work of the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership was provided by
Waymark Ltd. The following section provides
extracts of key findings and the complete
report is available in Appendix 8.
Health and wellbeing
Sheffield suffers considerable health
inequalities, particularly childhood obesity
and Type 2 Diabetes. The benefits of accessing
green space for health and wellbeing are well
documented and increasingly recognised in
mainstream policies.
The opportunity to prioritise health and
wellbeing in projects being developed by the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership,
aligns well with the strategic aims of other
organisations. The Partnership can look to
add value by leading specific landscape
and heritage-based initiatives designed to
optimise health and wellbeing benefits for
participants. Anecdotal evidence suggests
that the opportunity to engage in work or
educational activities particularly helps to lift
older people out of depression.
Given the range of other organisations
already active in this area, the Partnership
should identify opportunities to collaborate
and add value to the work being undertaken
by partners and interest groups, making
the most of emerging studies on good
practice – especially the Sheffield University
#refugeeswelcome project. The findings of
the 5 Ways to Wellbeing should be taken
into consideration when planning activities.
Dr Jenny Stephenson 23, Clarendon Road,
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I am a GP based at Stannington and Walkley, Sheffield 6 ever since 1985. I am also
Lead Clinician for Diabetes for Sheffield and have a wealth of clinical and public
health experience concerning peoples’ wellbeing and the promotion of healthy
lifestyles for all ages. With daily activity, within that person’s capabilities, I have seen
early cases of diabetes be reversed, cholesterol levels coming down, and a definite
benefit to depression and anxiety.
I am now researching my third Local History book, on the topic of water supply and
safety, taps and toilets, quality and wastage. The study has led me to explore
Sheffield’s reservoirs among other things, which brought me in touch with Sheffield
Lakeland Partnership. This is a fascinating project for me and one which embodies
my patients’ love of nature, conservation of our environment, and social gatherings
with the aim of improving health and wellbeing. It offers unrivalled opportunities for
the public to be encouraged into being more active, less isolated, and contributing to
their city’s heritage. I therefore see it also addressing the health and social
inequalities which we have in this city, using a managed resource which is on our
very doorsteps.
I therefore do not hesitate to recommend this initiative as a vital component of our
vibrant city.
Fulwood,
Sheffield.
S10 3TQ.
7.4.18.
Letter of support from Dr Jenny Stephenson,
Diabetes lead
88

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC REVIEW
Increasing understanding
and developing agency
Nature connectedness begins with basic
information – not only to encourage
enjoyment of the landscape, but to inform
behaviour (e.g. feeding ducks appropriate
food / keeping a dog on the lead) and aid
enjoyment (e.g. what footwear children
should wear). An added sense of purpose to
getting outdoors (e.g. citizen science apps)
is also beneficial in sustaining involvement.
Finally, an emotional engagement that goes
beyond understanding of facts leads to an
increase in pro-environmental and prosocial
behaviours.
Consultation with stakeholders identified
the following stepping stones were needed
to developing understanding of the value
of the landscape, to develop a sense
of personal agency and the emotional
engagement that leads to a sense of nature
connectedness:
• Understanding how to access the
countryside
• Managing conflicts of interest between
heritage conservation, agriculture and
recreational interests
• Understanding conservation effort – the
need to ‘translate’ the work of ecologists
and heritage experts into layman’s
terms to increase understanding and
engagement
Reaching a wider audience
Considerable work is already taking place
amongst Partnership members to reach out
to a variety of audiences, including minority
groups, people with limited mobility, people
experiencing health inequalities, new
arrivals, (Sheffield is a City of Sanctuary),
young people and older.
However, there is more to be done. For
example, Yorkshire Water’s customer
research indicates that people accessing
their land does not reflect the make-up of
their consumer base. They have an ambition
to make this a closer match.
The Peak District National Park’s Mosaic
project is an example of good practice
which aims ‘to cement long term
sustainable engagement between black
and minority ethnic, (BME), communities
and the National Parks and Youth Hostels
Association’.
The Mosaic project found that ‘for most
people, a single visit to a National Park and
its awe-inspiring landscape was enough
to connect with nature and inspire others
about it.’ Over half of the Sheffield Lakeland
project lies within the national park and
there are clear opportunities to expand
on these findings in the development of
community engagement projects.
• Supporting access to volunteering – hands
on opportunities to make a difference,
developing skills, knowledge, confidence
and self-esteem.
The Waymark report identified best practice
and resources for increasing diversity in
volunteering which are described further in
the appendices to their report.
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
89

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC REVIEW
Increasing the diversity of audiences:
Sheffield Lakeland should work with
existing organisations that have
good reach into and the trust of their
target audiences. These groups will
in turn benefit from the Partnership’s
support in how to engage their
memberships with the landscape
and heritage. Capacity building
within local organisations will create
a more lasting effect than one off
interventions. The Partnership should
avoid initiatives that would duplicate
or undermine existing effort and
cause disappointment when the
programme ends.
The two local Walkers are Welcome groups
based in Stocksbridge and Bradfield have
indicated that they would welcome a close
involvement with SLLP. Their responses to
Waymark’s consultation work reinforce the
above recommendations to work with local
groups to build capacity.
Q Which are the key group(s) that
your organisation would seek to
engage more?
Answer Bradfield:
People with a disability. People
with limited access to transport.
Q Are there any issues that
SLLP could help address with
its community engagement
strategy?
Answer Bradfield:
I’m beating the drum on behalf of
local on the ground organisations.
Answer Stocksbridge:
Share good practice and enable
others to build their capacity to
identify and adopt good practice.
Q Are there any issues that should
be avoided when creating
the community engagement
strategy?
Answer Stocksbridge:
Duplication of effort. Our area of
expertise is recreational walking.
We have written almost forty sets
of detailed instructions in the local
area. These are freely available as
downloadable PDF files from our
website.
Stannington Library and Bolsterstone
Archaeology and Heritage Group both
indicated ambitions to work more
effectively with schools and young people.
Both Stocksbridge and Bradfield Walkers are
Welcome groups organise a regular programme
of guided walks through the Sheffield Lakeland
landscape, Photo Dave Pickersgill
90 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC REVIEW
Schools and Young People
‘Children spend less time outdoors
than prisoners’
Robert McFarlane/BBC Radio 4, 2018
Sheffield Lakeland area contains a sharp
contrast between rural and urban. Children
are growing up in the city and ‘urban fringe’
without knowledge of the countryside,
farming and rural practices, despite having
the Sheffield Lakeland area on their doorstep.
Whilst the will is there on the part of many
schools, awareness of the opportunities and
benefits of access to their local heritage,
prioritisation of school budgets and the
demands of the curriculum remain a
significant barrier and make schools a very
difficult audience to address in a generic
way. Notwithstanding the above, schools
remain an important vehicle to engage with
the widest range of young people as groups
such as uniform groups are self-selecting.
School trip to Our Cow Molly, Dungwoth. Photo: Helen Dalby/SRWT
SLLP LCAP Understanding Introduction Sheffield Lakeland
91

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC REVIEW
Landscape Connections Pilot
Projects
In early 2018, a school farm visit activity
was piloted in the Sheffield Lakeland area,
working with 3 schools – one from within
the project area (just a mile from the farm),
one from the urban fringe and one from the
inner city. The children were a mixture of
Key stage 1 and 2.
During the visit, children had the chance to
encounter cows close up, mud, farm yard
smells, bug hunt in the fields, make butter
and eat ice cream made on the farm. Key
stage 2 children were told about the need
for dairy cows to have calf each year in
order to produce milk.
The following observations were made:
Children had a go at ‘milking’ at the dairy.
They also made butter from cream, sniffed silage
and grain and of course had some ice-cream
produced on the farm. Photo: Helen Dalby / SRWT
The event was extremely well
received by all concerned. A child
was overheard to say, to nobody in
particular, ‘I just want this day to go
on forever!’
Particularly interesting feedback
came from the headteacher of
Grenoside Primary (urban fringe):
Q What is the impact of this sort of
activity on the children?
A We have gained deep levels of
interest and are creating positive
memories. These children are
fascinated by this experience, many
never having had this opportunity
before in a family context.
Q What are you hoping they gain
from today’s outdoor learning?
A Resilience! Showing that girls
can get muddy and work with
big animals, even a bit of sex
education.
92
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC REVIEW
Following the pilot
projects, Waymark
developed the
following model
showing how
important the role
of the Wildlife Trust’s
Outdoor Learning
Team was as the point
of ‘trusted experience’
for both the school
and the farm.
The following recommendations were made following the pilot projects:
• Focus on local schools not yet participating
in countryside based outdoor learning
with the outcome that they then enrol
on a programme that includes Wild PE,
nature study as well as the farm visit. The
advantage of a programme over a one-off
event is that the school can direct specific
budgets to it and put in place measures to
assess their ROI (this is a school necessity
for funds such as Pupil Premium).
• Make maximum use of the teacher
feedback and demonstrate, (e.g. using
video), the impact of these sessions on
KS2 participants. Ask for all feedback from
teachers on the day rather than asking
them to fill out surveys afterwards.
• Ensure a full understanding of an individual
schools’ needs and use of budgets.
• Videoing the children is an option,
provided that consent has been asked for
by the school in advance of the trip. This
is a question that can be easily added to
pre-visit information for parents.
• All parents were asked to send their
children in footwear that was suitable for
muddy conditions, ideally wellies, and
an outdoor coat, however it was noted
that this had not happened in all cases.
There is a possibility that children who
spend the day feeling cold and getting
their shoes ruined and/or feet wet will not
enjoy the experience, to the extent that
the exercise backfires. The Landscape
Partnership might consider keeping some
emergency spare gear.
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
93

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC REVIEW
Sense of place and sense of
common purpose
The SLLP needs to put in place a
communication framework for
disseminating information to the
community. Information should be
consistently delivered by SLLP and
partners.
It is recognised that branding can be very
useful in landscape scale projects to build
cohesion between projects and connect
the various partners involved. For some
partnerships it is a worthwhile outcome
to build a ‘sense of place’ as a legacy. On a
practical level, branding also offers people
a level of comfort that they are in receipt of
‘good information’.
Notwithstanding the above, the
Landscape Partnership needs to put
in place a communication framework
for disseminating information to the
community. Information should be
consistently delivered by partners.
Furthermore, during the lifetime and
beyond it will be necessary to provide a
framework to showcase the work of the
partnership in the Sheffield Lakeland
project and the support of the Heritage
Lottery Fund.
The Sheffield Lakeland project name and
associated identity can be used to badge
this framework, and additionally should be
used by partners to indicate involvement
and support for the project.
However, Sheffield Lakeland already has
a unique sense of place, treasured by its
communities and a number of constituent
parts of the Sheffield Lakeland Partnership
area already work within strong brand
identities:
• Sheffield – the Outdoor City
• Peak District National Park
• Yorkshire Water
It is therefore recommended that
building a Sheffield Lakeland brand
identity beyond the duration of the
project has little value and should
not be attempted given these
existing strong brands.
94 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC REVIEW
Understanding existing information
The following reports and strategies have
been used to inform the development
of this chapter and the detailed project
briefs. Further information on the specific
relevance of individual documents can be
found within each detailed project brief in
Chapter 11.
International Strategy Documents
• EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020
• EU Water Framework Directive
• Paris Climate Change Agreement
National Strategy Documents
• Active Ageing Strategy 2016-2021
• Brexit – Effect on farming
• Brexit, NCVO briefing note 2016
• Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for
England’s wildlife and ecosystem services
• Conservation Principles Policies and
Guidance, Historic England
• Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural
Heritage (2002) Landscape Character
Assessment: Guidance for England and
Scotland.
• Countryside Agency and Scottish
Natural Heritage (2004) Topic Paper
6: Techniques and criteria for judging
landscape sensitivity and capacity
• DEFRA Farming Rules for Water
• Defra Strategy 2016-2020 ‘Creating a
great place for living’:
• Forests and Archaeology Guidelines
Forestry Commission.
• Implications of a UK exit from the EU for
British agriculture – NFU 2016
• Lawton Report – Making Space for Nature
2010
• MIND / New Economics Foundation
Research– 5 Ways to Wellbeing
• National Curriculum
• National Planning Policy Framework
• Natural England (2014) An Approach to
Landscape Character Assessment
• NFU Brexit Domestic Agriculture Policy
• Public Health England: Local action on
health inequalities: Building children and
young people’s resilience in schools
• Robert Macfarlane: Do children in the
UK spend enough time outdoors? - BBC
Newsnight - https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=2a7cjq_N3dE
• UKWAS – United Kingdom Woodland
Assurance Scheme
Regional/Local Research and Strategy
Documents
• Derbyshire County Council Rights of Way
Improvement Plan (Peak District)
• East Peak Innovation Partnership, A Year
in the East Peak, A Review of the State of
Traditional Performance.
• IWUN – Improving Wellbeing Through
Urban Nature
• LEADER programme strategic review, East
Peak Innovation Partnership
• MOSAIC, Campaign for National Parks
• Move More Plan 2015
• PDNPA Management Plan (PDMP)
• Peak District, Dark Peak (Yorkshire Fringe)
Strategy 2009
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
95

AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC REVIEW
• Sheffield City Council Area Ward
priorities
• Sheffield City Council – Climate Change
• Sheffield Council Cohesion and
Integration Strategy
• Sheffield City Council Core Strategy
• Sheffield City Local Biodiversity Action
Plan
• Sheffield Economic Strategy, Sheffield
City Council
• Sheffield Environmental Movement –
local best practice working with BAMER
communities
• Sheffield Flood Risk Management
Strategy, SCC
• Sheffield Green Belt and countryside
preliminary Landscape Character
Assessment
• Sheffield Heritage Strategy Plan, Joined
Up Heritage Sheffield, JUHS 2017
• Sheffield Rights of Way Improvement
Plan 2007-17
• Sheffield: the Outdoor City Strategy,
• Sheffield Woodland and Trees strategy
2016
• The Sheffield Woodland Environmental
Enhancement Project (SWEEP)
• South Yorkshire Green Infrastructure
Strategy 2011
• Waterways Strategy
• Yorkshire Water 25 Year Blueprint Plan
(2013)
• The University of Sheffield,
#Refugeeswelcome in Parks, 2017
96 SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland

Photo T. Bagshaw
This pack horse bridge was relocated to
Glen Howe Park in 1925, prior to the flooding
of More Hall Reservoir, the last of Sheffield
Lakeland’s reservoirs to be built
SLLP LCAP Understanding Sheffield Lakeland
97

Our Statement
of Significance
“...what is most significant about
a place goes beyond a listing of
designated and protected sites to
include the human and cultural
factors which underpin its
importance to local communities.”
98 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Our Statement of Significance
The Sheffield Lakeland area forms the
‘back yard’ for a large part of North West
Sheffield, an area which juxtaposes
some of the poorest and most affluent
wards and districts in the city. The
Sheffield Lakeland landscape is at the
same time playground, back drop and
protector of the city - fulfilling multiple
cultural and natural capital roles.
Our statement of significance highlights the
area’s principal designations for landscape,
natural heritage and built heritage. It also
notes the significance of the landscape as a
whole, which through its mixture of natural
habitats and farmland and its location
between the uplands of the Peak District
and the Sheffield conurbation, acts as a
significant buffer zone and potential wildlife
corridor for the movement species at the
edge of their range in response to climate
change.
This statement of significance describes
what is important about the heritage of the
Sheffield Lakeland area, why it is important
and to whom, recognising that what is most
significant about a place goes beyond a
listing of designated and protected sites
to include the human and cultural factors
which underpin its importance to local
communities. To this end, this chapter is
accompanied by a video entitled ‘What
Sheffield Lakeland Means to Me’, which
provides a snap shot from early 2018 of
community responses to the landscape in
the form of quotes, paintings, photographs
and poetry. A link to the video can be
found here: https://youtu.be/P6gqOhjb--s.
Our statement of significance focuses
on the opportunities and threats which
can be influenced through the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership, whilst
also acknowledging significant landscape
features which are already supported
through other programmes and therefore
not a major component of the our
objectives.
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
99

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Our landscape significance
The Peak District National Park
The Peak District National Park is an
upland area at the southern end of the
Pennines covering 1,437 km² of north
Derbyshire, parts of Cheshire, Greater
Manchester, Staffordshire, West Yorkshire
as well as Sheffield and Barnsley in South
Yorkshire. Its proximity to the cities of
Sheffield, Manchester and Derby means
that its exceptional landscapes attract over
10 million visitors each year. Wikipedia, 2018
Mass trespasses onto the moors by the
industrial communities of Sheffield and
Manchester from the late 1920s onwards,
gradually led to concessions to access
and in 1951 the Peak District was the first
location in the UK to be given national park
status under the National Parks and Access
to the Countryside Act, 1949.
Two thirds of the Sheffield Lakeland area
are within the Peak District National Park
boundary, lying within the area of the Park
known as the Dark Peak, which is so named
for the dominance of bleak, sparsely habited
peat moorland. This extensive moorland
is one of the largest semi-natural areas in
England and has broad plateaus with rocky
outcrops interspersed with river valleys and
reservoirs.
In recognition of the Peak District’s long
heritage of quarrying for millstones and
grindstones, the national park uses a
millstone as the ‘key visual element in
promoting the Peak District National
Park’, including as the Park logo and at
key gateways into the landscape (Peak
District National Park website, 2018).
However, travelling west from Sheffield or
Barnsley, there are currently no millstone
welcome signs on the Mortimer (Strines)
Road, contributing to a lack of identity for
the Sheffield Lakeland area as part of a
nationally important landscape.
Strines Reservoir with Hoyles Farm
cruck barn. Photo C. Watts
100 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
101

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Conservation Areas
A Conservation Area is defined as ‘an area
of special architectural or historic interest,
the character or appearance of which it is
desirable to preserve or enhance’ (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas - Planning
Act 1990).
In the part of the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership area covered by
the Peak District National Park Authority,
the following settlements have been
designated as Conservation Areas:
• Bradfield
• Langsett
• Bolsterstone
• Upper Midhope
Outside of the Peak Park, the Sheffield
City Council has designated the following
settlements as Conservation Areas:
• Midhopestones
• Brightholmelee
• Wadsley
• Middlewood Park
Adopted appraisals for these Conservation
Areas can be seen on Sheffield City
Council’s website by searching ‘Conservation
area appraisals’.
Adopted appraisals for these Conservation
Areas can be seen on the Peak District
National Park website by searching
‘Conservation area appraisals’.
Waggon and Horses pub in
Langsett, Photo T Bagshaw
102 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Our significance for natural heritage
The Sheffield Landscape Partnership Area
includes a diverse range of wildlife sites
ranging from nationally significant upland
heathland, (Sites of Special Scientific
Interest), regionally important ancient
woodland sites and Local Nature Reserves,
to locally important Local Wildlife Sites and
Yorkshire Water reservoirs.
A significant proportion of the Sheffield
Lakeland area is designated for the
importance of its habitats, biodiversity
and geological interest. The principal
international, national and regional
designations are described below.
Below: Wet flush at Agden Rocher showing a rich
diversity of bog vegetation. Photo N. Abbas
South Pennine Moors Special
Area of Conservation (SAC)
The South Pennine Moors SAC boundary
covers two thirds of the programme
area and is shown in the map below. It
is land designated under the European
Habitats Directive 1992 as important to
the conservation of priority habitats and
species, including dry heaths, blanket
bogs and clough woodland. The South
Pennine Moors SAC represent the most
south easterly occurrence of blanket bog
in Europe. Some uncommon species such
as cranberry, Vaccinium oxycoccos and
sundew, Drosera rotundifolia are locally
abundant in the Sheffield Lakeland area.
103

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
104 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Peak District Moors, (South Pennine Phase 1)
Special Protection Area (SPA)
About one third of the Sheffield Lakeland
area is covered by the Peak District Moors,
(South Pennine Moors Phase 1), SPA, which
includes the major moorland blocks from
West Yorkshire to South West Derbyshire.
SPA’s are a European designation which
protects the habitats of migratory and other
threatened bird species. SPA’s originate
under the European Union Directive on the
Conservation of Wild Birds 1979 and in the
UK is enacted by The Conservation (Natural
Habitats etc.) Regulations 1994.
The moorlands support a number of priority
species typical of the South Pennines,
including birds of prey and waders e.g.
Merlin, Falco columbarius and Golden Plover,
Pluvialis apricaria. In addition, designated
species and other species of interest spend
significant time feeding outside the SPA
on adjacent areas of in-bye land within the
Sheffield Lakeland landscape.
Source: (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/
sacselection/sac.asp?EUCode=UK0030280), 2018
Lapwings are regularly seen on
the wet pasture above Agden
Rocher. Photo R. Miller
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
105

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Dark Peak Site of Special Scientific Interest
Within the Sheffield Lakeland area, both the
SAC and the SPA are underpinned by the
Dark Peak Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI), which in addition to Sheffield also
covers parts of Barnsley in South Yorkshire,
and parts of Derbyshire, Greater Manchester
and West Yorkshire. The Natural England
citation describes the area as a ‘wild, open
and more or less continuous moorland,
predominantly at an altitude of 400-600m’.
Typical vegetation includes plateaux
blanket mires; wet and dry heaths and acid
grasslands, together with associated flushes
and mires on moorland slopes. The area’s
significance is increased because several
vegetation types, plants and animals are
at either the southern or northern limits of
their distribution in this country.
Most of the Sheffield Lakeland portion of
the Dark Peak SSSI is below the deep peat
of the plateaux, where the vegetation more
typically consists of heathland dominated
by heather, with areas of acidic grassland,
and the typical acid loving dwarf shrubs
and grasses found in the region such as
bilberry, Vaccinium myrtillus. In addition,
the less common cowberry, Vaccinium vitisidaea
and cranberry, Vaccinium oxycoccos,
can also be found.
Other locally uncommon plants present in
the Dark Peak heathlands include common
cow wheat, Melampyrum pratense, which
grows on the Langsett Moors, and Dyer’s
greenweed Genista tinctoria, on the
Broomhead Moors. The smaller mires and
flushes, beneath springs and along seepage
lines and streams are botanically very rich
with some featuring round-leaved sundew
Drosera rotundifolia, an uncommon species
in the South Pennines found for example
above Agden Reservoir near Bradfield. A
complex of cotton grass flushes by Emlin
Dike on the Bradfield Moors has the largest
population of this species, of the order of
tens of thousands of individual plants, in the
Peak District. Much of the heather moors
in the Sheffield Lakeland area are regularly
burnt to provide a supply of young shoots
for managed red grouse, Lagopus lagopus,
populations.
Grouse moor dominated by heather above Langsett
reservoir in the Dark Peak SSSI. C. Watts
106 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The steep sided cloughs are refuges of
sessile oak Quercus petraea and birch Betula
spp. woodland. with associated woodland
ground flora. The rivers and reservoirs of
the area provide habitat for waterside birds
such as dipper Cinclus cinclus, grey wagtail
Motacilla cinerea and common sandpiper
Actitis hypoleucos.
The Sheffield Lakeland area supports
significant numbers of moorland birds
including curlew, Numenius arquata,
twite Linaria flavirostris and ring ouzel
Turdus torquatus. However, considerable
conservation efforts are being put into
improving the breeding success of these
species under other schemes and as such
they are not priority species for the Landscape
Partnership. The woodlands of the Dark Peak
support small numbers of woodland and
woodland edge birds such as pied flycatcher
Ficedula hypoleuca. Goshawk, Accipiter
gentilis has been regularly reported in the
past, but records have become increasingly
infrequent over the past 10 years despite
favourable habitat conditions.
Below: Remnants of ancient woodland cling to the steep
sides of the area’s cloughs such as Thickwoods Clough at
Langsett. Photo C. Watts
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
107

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Eastern Peak District Moors Site of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI)
The Eastern Peak District Moors SSSI lies to
the immediate south of the more extensive
and higher Dark Peak moorlands and are
separated from the White Peak by the valley
of the river Derwent. Natural England, 2018.
The Eastern Moors form the eastern fringe
of the Peak District National Park and
the southern extremity of the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership area
including moors at Ughill and Moscar and
Redmires to the south of the A57.
In contrast with the largely continuous
moorlands of the Dark Peak, the
Eastern Peak District Moors are crisscrossed
by minor roads that break
the area into a number of individually
named and separately managed
landholdings.
The Natural England citation describes the significance of the Eastern Moors
in similar terms to the Dark Peak SSSI:
Heather moor predominates throughout and is
used for grouse shooting and hill sheep farming.
This reflects the poor soils and harsh climate,
though rainfall here is lower than on the the
Eastern Peak District Moors are of special interest
for their breeding birds, upland vegetation, lower
plants, invertebrates and geological features. The
combination of blanket bog, wet and dry heaths,
acid grasslands and small flushes, together with
gritstone edges, cliffs and boulder slopes, streams
and moorland reservoirs, and fringing woodland
represents the full range of upland vegetation
characteristic of the South Pennines and supports
several important species assemblages. Natural England, 2018
108 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The meadows around Moscar are noted as
being particularly diverse and include acidic
species such as field woodrush Luzula
campestris, autumn hawkbit, Leontodon
autumnalis, and bitter vetch Lathyrus
montanus, together with calcicoles such as
fairy flax Linum catharticum and glaucous
sedge Carex flacca.
When the reservoirs are drawn down in
the autumn they attract migratory waders
and during the winter they support a
significant population of goosander,
Mergus merganser.
Right: View over the Moscar moors over the Rivelin Valley
towards Hollow Meadows. Photo Andrew Stringer
Below: Redmires reservoirs and surrounding farmland
provide an important habitat for a range of species
including wading birds and water voles. Photo C. Watts
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
109

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Geological Sites of Special Scientific Interest
The geology of the Sheffield Lakeland
area has played a significant role in the
human history of the region, particularly
during the industrial revolution of the
18th and 19th centuries, when coal,
ironstone, fireclay, ganister, shale and
sandstone were extracted from the
sedimentary layers of the Pennine Basin
in large quantities to support a rapidlydeveloping
economy.
(Source: http://www.geologyatsheffield.
co.uk/sagt/south_yorks_geology/ ,2018)
To the west of the Sheffield Lakeland
area, the Peak District moorlands overlie
grits, shales, sandstones and mudstones
of the Millstone Grit, creating west facing
gritstone edges which occur along
abrupt faults of downfolds in the strata.
This landscape feature is key to the
development of recreational activities in
the area such as rock climbing. Stanage
Edge is described as ‘the Queen of Grit
– the longest, finest outcrop of the best,
most unique rock Britain has to offer…
climbing nirvana.’
Source: https://www.ukclimbing.com/ 2018.
The millstone grit weathers to produce
a coarse, gravelly soil which can become
leached by the average 1500 mm annual
rainfall of the region. Blanket peat in the
Sheffield Lakeland area reaches its greatest
depth on the plateau at the watershed.
Further east the geology changes to
the Lower Coal Measures (Westphalian /
Langsettian) as can be seen on this map.
There are four locations in the Sheffield
Lakeland area which are designated as
SSSI’s for their geological significance:
Canyards Hills SSSI
This 64.1 ha site is just outside the
Dark Peak SSSI, between the Ewden
Valley and Bradfield. It is described in
its citation as ‘the most extreme form
and best example of ‘tumbled ground’,
with innumerable small Millstone Grit
blocks taking up a large landslip’.
The site is also significant for its rich
biodiversity, which results from the
seasonal and permanent ponds
supported by the topography, which
are home to significant aquatic and
bog vegetation and provide breeding
areas for invertebrate and amphibian
populations, including common
hawker, Aeshna juncea, and the large
red damselfly, Pyrrhosoma nymphula,
common frog, Rana temporaria, and
palmate newt, Triturus helveticus.
Natural England, 2018
Stannington Ruffs SSSI
Stannington Ruffs is a cliff face on
the southern side of the Loxley Valley,
amongst deciduous woodland.
The citation describes this as the
‘best available exposure for showing
the Crawshaw Sandstone Formation
(Lower Westphalian A)… which under
normal conditions, tends to have
been reworked by wave and/or tidal
activity, destroying the structure. This
sandstone interval has proved to be
of considerable economic importance
as a gas reservoir and so a thorough
understanding of its structure and
genesis is of considerable importance’.
Natural England, 2018
110 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Wadsley Fossil Forest SSSI
Wadsley Fossil Forest sits within the
grounds of Middlewood Hospital
and contains fossil tree stumps in
their original location. The citation
describes them as ‘best preserved
example in the British Isles of trees
which were part of the extensive
coal forming swamp forests growing
some 300 million years ago during
the Westphalian, a sub-division of the
Carboniferous Period’. The site has
been subject of previous projects and
study and so has not been prioritised
in the SLLP programme, although its
significant palaeobotanical interest is
recognised.
Natural England, 2018
Photo: Canyards Hills geological SSSI is also rich in
biodiversity. © Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome
Little Don Stream Section SSSI
This geological SSSI site can be
found on the banks of the Little
Don, between Midhopestones and
Langsett in the north of the Sheffield
Lakeland area, where Pot Clay Coal
and the Gastrioceras subcrenatum
Marine Band are exposed along
the banks of the river. The principal
industry in Midhopestones was once
clay pot making, although all that
remains of the industry is the name of
the pub – the Mustard Pot.
The Little Don stream Section SSSI is
internationally significant for geology
as it provides the reference section for
one of the major units (Westphalian
A) of the Carboniferous System. This
means that this site is the benchmark
against which all rocks of comparable
age, (350 million years), throughout
the world are evaluated.
The location has given its name to
a sub-division of the Carboniferous
system known as Langsettian.
Natural England, 2018
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
111

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
112 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Sites of regional and local significance for wildlife
The importance of the habitats in the
landscape which sits outside of the
National Park and the area’s internationally
and nationally protected designations is
recognised through the Local Wildlife Sites
process, with 1,354 hectares, or 27% of the
Sheffield Lakeland area outside the Peak
District designated as Local Wildlife Sites
(LWS’s). In addition, there are Local Nature
Reserves, (LNR’s), at Fox Hagg, Wadsley and
Loxley Common and Townend Common
and Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
manages nature reserves at Hammonds
Field, Fox Hagg and Wyming Brook, Carr
House Meadows and Agden Bog.
LWS’s are non-statutory sites designated
for their substantive nature conservation
value and are identified and selected locally
for their nature conservation value based
on their importance in the local context,
although they may be important in a
district, regional or national context too.
There are 69 LWS’s in the Sheffield Lakeland
area. Habitats in the programme area
include woodlands and scrub, hedgerows,
heath, grassland communities, farmland
including pasture, aquatic communities
including streams and open water such as
reservoirs, specialist fungi habitats such as
waxcap grasslands and vegetation of open
habitats. The interplay between forestry,
reservoirs, clough and scrub woodland
and the wider countryside has created a
mosaic of habitats which help define the
area and add significantly to the biodiversity
of the region. The LWS’s are of high local
significance, forming the core of the most
ecologically rich and visually distinctive
elements of the eastern part of the Sheffield
Lakeland area.
Below left: People surveying for wax caps at Carr House
Meadows. Below right: The wax cap close up
113

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Cotton grass growing in wet
pasture at Cowell Flat outside
the SSSI and protected areas.
Photo C. Watts
114 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Forestry plantations
Sheffield City Council, Yorkshire Water and
private landowners such as the Fitzwilliam-
Wentworth Estate and Broomhead Estate
control the majority of forestry operations
in the Sheffield Lakeland area. The history
of land use is an important element in how
the area is experienced and appreciated.
The development of conifer plantations and
their interplay with broadleaf woodlands in
the valleys, associated with the reservoirs
has created a strong aesthetic and
community sympathy.
important habitat for nightjar, Caprimulgus
europaeus and goshawk, Acipter gentilis.
During the 1970’s and 80’s the area was well
known as a place to see goshawk, (RSPB,
Peak Malpractice DATE), and although,
locally, the goshawk has declined in the last
decade, the presence of these birds lends
Sheffield Lakeland’s woodlands and forestry
regional significance.
The rotation of commercial timber
production over small areas in the valleys
brings succession in age and diversity of
species which compliments both native
woodlands and heritage stands of conifer.
The origin and management of stands of
coniferous timber is part of the business
and culture of the Sheffield Lakelands and
the management process contributes an
Left: Sheffield Lakeland’s forests and
woodlands are important for wildlife
and for recreation, Photo Stocksbridge
Walkers are Welcome
Below: Timber harvesting - many of
the conifer plantations in the Sheffield
Lakeland area are reaching maturity,
Photo Dave Aspinall
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
115

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Water bodies
While the 14 reservoirs compose a significant
visual feature in the landscape the acid, low
nutrient nature of the water itself, together
with fluctuating water levels, result in them
offering very limited opportunity for wildlife.
Having said this, the mix of habitats
managed by Yorkshire Water, (which
includes wetlands, rivers, and water bodies),
supports a wide range of bird species
including crossbills, Loxia curvirostra and
willow tit Poecile montanus. A fish pass is
being built at Langsett to aid wild brown
trout, Salmo trutta, by providing access
over the weir for river spawning.
(Yorkshire Water, 2017)
The recently completed fish pass at Brook House Bridge,
Langsett Reservoir. Photo K. Tomkins
116 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Priority species
The landscape has been identified by Wildscape, our Ecological Consultants,
as offering potential significance for the following species:
Goshawk, Nightjar and Osprey:
The area is of historic national
significance for goshawk as it was one
of the earliest reintroduction sites and
up until the early 2000s, supported a
thriving breeding population, (Peak
District Raptor Monitoring Group).
Whilst the species has not successfully
bred in the area for some time, it is
hoped that through the appropriate
habitat management and action,
the species can be encouraged to
re-colonise once again. However, this
management should be planned so
as to avoid undue conflict with already
successful programmes encouraging
nightjar and woodland bird species
such as willow tit, pied and spotted
flycatcher that are present in the area.
Barn Owl:
The combination of remnant
traditional meadows and rough
grassland particularly around the
Low Bradfield area offers excellent
suitability for barn owl, Tito alba, and
there are historic records of the species
thriving in the area. However, the loss
of historic breeding sites and suitable
foraging habitat as a result of changing
farming practices and conversion
of barns to residential is likely to be
having a limiting effect on this species.
Below: The tussocks in this rough pasture land
provide perfect habitat for voles, supporting the
presence of Barn Owl in the Bradfield area.
Photo C. Watts
The Sheffield Lakeland area, in
combination with the water bodies
in the wider Peak District area, also
offers potential for the re-colonisation
of the nationally significant species
osprey, Pandion haliaetus.
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
117

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Bats (various species):
The combination of topography,
lowland woodland, water, natural and
man-made underground structures
within the Sheffield Lakeland area is
unique within the local area and is
suited to a variety of bat species. The
diversity of bat species present within
Sheffield Lakeland is higher than the
local surrounds as a result. The area
supports the only known roost within
South Yorkshire of the nationally
scarce Brandt’s bat, Myotis brandti,
as well as significant hibernation and
maternity colonies of other species.
Despite these records, much of the
woodland and underground sites
have never been surveyed or assessed
and it is possible that other sites of
regional or national importance may
be present.
Long eared bat - the
Sheffield Lakeland
landscape supports
a wide variety of bat
species. Photo South
Yorkshire Bat Group
118 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Water Vole:
Water vole, Arvicola amphibious,
would have at one time ranged
throughout all of the watercourses
within the Sheffield Lakeland area,
however a combination of habitat
degradation and the encroachment
of the North American mink now
leaves this nationally significant
species restricted to a few isolated
precarious upland sites with
Redmires a particular stronghold.
Water vole are regularly seen
by visitors walking alongside
the Redmires Conduit. Photo
Guy Badham
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
119

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Our significance for archaeology and built heritage
The archaeological and built heritage of
the Sheffield Lakeland area tells the story of
human occupation from pre-history to the
late 20th century.
Due to the heritage values that can be
assigned to the dams and reservoirs, it
is considered water management is an
underrepresented resource within the
historic environment.
ECUS Heritage Consultants, 2017
There is a total of 13 Scheduled Monuments
(SM) in the Sheffield Lakeland area, which
are of national importance. These cover
bronze age barrows and stone circles,
Norman motte and bailey locations, pack
horse bridges and guide stones, 18th and
19th century glass furnace, forges and
mill wheel sites and World War 1 training
trenches. Archaeological finds range from
Neolithic and Mesolithic flint scrapers,
arrowheads and axeheads, Romano-British
pottery and medieval millstones and
pottery, Civil War cannon balls.
The Sheffield Lakeland area has just one
Grade I listed building which is the Church
of St Nicholas in High Bradfield and five
Grade II* buildings:
• The Church of St James, Midhopestones
• Loxley United Reformed Church
• Fairhouse Farmhouse, Bradfield
• Onesacre Hall, Onesacre
• Rolling mill and water wheel,
Little Matlock
There are 155 Grade II buildings and
structures which include barns, farmhouses,
pack horse bridges, guide stoops, war
memorial, stocks and a red telephone kiosk.
The area is particularly significant for Cruck
Barns, with a significant proportion of South
Yorkshire’s Cruck Barns being found in the
Sheffield Lakeland area.
The churchyard at St Nicholas Church in
High Bradfield is a wonderful built and
natural heritage resource. Photo C. Watts
120

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
A full list of the Sheffield Lakeland area’s
scheduled sites is provided in Appendix 2.
ECUS consultants summarised the
archaeological significance of the Sheffield
Lakeland is as follows:
The historic environment reflects the
continuity and change across the survey
area which has been influenced by the
management of water, whether for
settlement, industry or creation of reservoirs.
The high significance of some of these
heritage assets is reflected in their statutory
designation of national importance (listed
buildings and scheduled monuments).
There is significant potential for further
research to reveal heritage of at least
regional importance relating to historic
settlement and local vernacular, historic
routeways, land use, industrial remains,
military and water management.
Prehistoric heritage
The Sheffield Lakeland area contains
a significant amount of evidence for
prehistoric activity with historical and
evidential values. Evidence for prehistoric
occupation, land use and burial is
recognised as being of national significance
and there are several barrow and stone
circle sites designated as scheduled
monuments. That these sites are wellpreserved
allows past aspects of life to
be connected to the present through the
distribution and location of prehistoric
remains within the landscape.
Further evidential value is provided as most
of the recorded heritage assets comprise
find-spots of one or more artefacts.
Remains from the prehistoric period are
potentially of regional, if not national,
significance, due to what the historic
environment could teach us about the
nature and extent of early human activity in
northern England.
Water management
The construction of the dams in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries had a
dramatic impact on the landscape of the
area and the establishment of reservoirs
within former river valleys are now a key
characteristic of the historic landscape of
the area.
The heritage significance of water
management remains within the Sheffield
Lakeland is multi-layered. They have the
potential to provide historical value through
the way the dams were planned, designed
and created; evidential value through how
the reservoirs were constructed and the
resulting changes to the historic land use
and settlement pattern; aesthetic and
communal values of how the water bodies
are now part of the experience of the
landscape and focus for recreational access.
Currently there are very few heritage
assets associated with the building of the
reservoirs held in the South Yorkshire Sites
and Monuments Record, (SYSMR), for the
study area, however local history collections
such as Stocksbridge and District Historical
Society and the Bradfield Archives hold a
number of excellent photographs and other
records of the construction of the reservoirs
and the everyday activities associated with
the people who came into the area to build
them.
Due to the heritage values that can be
assigned to the dams and reservoirs, it
is considered water management is an
underrepresented resource within the
historic environment record but are of, at
least, regional importance.
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
121

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Broomhead Reservoir
The extravagant gothic
design of the dams and
associated reservoir buildings
speaks volumes about the
engineering confidence of
the late Victorian era and
creates a unique form of
designed landscape in the
Sheffield Lakeland area.
Derelict Rocher Head Farm
The water authority bought
up many farms in order
to improve water quality.
Rocher Head Farm above
Agden Reservoir was
abandoned in the 1960s.
122

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Industrial activity
The Sheffield Lakeland is a landscape
that is rich in the remains of industrial
activity. The industrial heritage of Sheffield
and its surrounding river network is well
documented, (e.g. Ball et al 2006). However,
the national significance of the early use of
water power in the landscape, especially in
the Rivelin and Loxley river valleys, should
not be understated and is important in
terms of historic and evidential values of
Sheffield Lakeland. Industrial remains are
not just limited to the post-medieval period
but stretch back through the medieval
period to the Romano-British era.
Transport
The heritage assets recorded by the SYSMR
and HER for Sheffield allow for the major
historical routes through the survey area
to be established. However, there is an
opportunity for the SLLP to expand on
this baseline, by identifying the minor
routes which connected the places where
people lived and worked to the major cross
Pennine trade routes. It is considered that
the resource has historic and evidential
values that are of regional interest, due
to the potential for informing on interregional
movement which can be linked to
settlement pattern and industry.
A few industrial assets have been
recognised as nationally important through
designation, and the potential of the wider
industrial heritage resource is of regional,
if not national, importance in relation to
the role of industry in the development of
Sheffield as an international producer of
metal ware.
Associated with the development of the
steel industry, the scale of refractory brick
production can still be seen in the remains
of ganister mines and remaining derelict
buildings such as the Hepworth works in
the Loxley Valley. Dysons ceramic works
opened in 1810 and was for many years was
the principal employer in Stannington. It
was not uncommon for small scale farmers
to also work part-time at the brickworks.
Dysons closed in 2006 and in 2018 was
demolished to make way for a new housing
estate. Photographs which capture the
works in their final state of decay, including
human scale artefacts such as work boots
and office chairs can be seen at https://
www.derelictplaces.co.uk/main/industrialsites/34315-dysons-refractories-stanningtonaug-2016-dec-2016-a.html.
Such websites
now form an important unofficial archive of
the industrial heritage of the valleys which
is at risk of being erased from memory.
When is a pack horse bridge not a pack horse bridge?
This bridge, currently crossing the Tinker Brook at Glen
Howe, was re-located from the Ewden valley in 1926 to
prevent it being lost under the newly developed More
Hall Reservoir. Photo Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome
This heavy old horse shoe was found at the side of the
track at Thickwoods Clough, Langsett. Photo C. Watts
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
123

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Land use
The history of land use is of at least local, if
not regional, importance. Land use patterns
help define how the Sheffield Lakeland
area is experienced and appreciated, and
as a result the historic landscape character
of the area has strong aesthetic and
communal values. Continuity and change
of land use across the area also provides
historical and evidential values which
inform our understanding of how past uses
of the landscape give Sheffield Lakeland its
sense of place within the wider region.
Settlements
The local vernacular building style seen
in farm buildings and village centres
such as Bolsterstone and Bradfield
and the distribution and density of
settlement pattern provide evidence for
settlement activity in the landscape; whilst
archaeological remains can provide further
insights into earlier settlement patterns.
Medieval settlement was largely rural and
there are a significant number of cruckframed
buildings of medieval and postmedieval
date within the survey area. The
survey area contains numerous designated
heritage assets of national importance and
taken as a whole the wider resource is of
regional interest.
Military
The heritage assets linked with military
activity within the survey area are
associated with both training and
defence. The World War One training
trenches above Redmires Reservoir
provide a tangible link to the near past,
providing communal value in relation to
international events as well as historic and
evidential values. The national importance
of this resource is recognised by its
designation as a Scheduled Monument.
The last remnants of the World War Two
Prisoner of War camp at Lodgemoor
Plantation can also be seen near to
Redmires Reservoir.
During World War Two, defensive
structures were constructed in to protect
the reservoirs from attack (Sheffield
Waterworks 1948: 34). Remains of these
and other World War Two defensive and
training structures can be seen around
Langsett Reservoir.
World War Two tank training location - the story of
Langsett at war has already been well interpreted
through a previous HLF project and has therefore not
been prioritised by the Landscape Partnership.
Photo Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome
124 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Culture and communities
A living landscape
Sheffield is a city built on seven hills, and it
is that landscape - with its rivers, woodlands
and mineral resources - which has produced
the city we see today. A sense of place and
of local distinctiveness remains very strong
amongst Sheffield Lakeland residents.
Research undertaken for the Access and
Gateways Study included direct consultation
with local people and community groups in
the area, along with a questionnaire survey
of around 1000 individuals.
The analysis of this data provided insight
into what makes the area so special for local
people. A combination of cultural and natural
heritage underpins this local distinctiveness,
and the research identified further scope to
strengthen this through further interpretation
of the stories of the landscape. This will add
to people’s understanding and enjoyment of
the area and reinforce their engagement and
sense of place.
Many people visiting and working in the
area focus on the huge significance of
water in this relatively ‘wild’ landscape - the
reservoirs, local dams and rivers, sited in
the open moorland and steep-sided valleys.
These features are clearly one of the main
draws of the area. However, local landscape
historian, Professor Melvyn Jones (personal
communication, 2017), also suggests that
another important factor is its ‘continuity’
of human habitation and use which is still
recorded and celebrated in the Sheffield
Lakeland area today, with active history
societies in Bradfield and Stocksbridge,
excellent local archives and committed
memberships.
Projects undertaken by the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership can build
on existing cultural and natural heritage
knowledge within these existing groups,
not only to form a basis for increased
interpretation and enjoyment, but also
to enable a broader range of people to
enjoy the area’s sense of place. There are
many individuals with important stories
to tell and personal research which needs
to be captured, to better appreciate the
area – there remains a narrow window of
opportunity to collect oral histories from the
middle of the 20th century which should
not be missed.
Photos: Workshop at Stannington and Stannington
Collage. Local people were keen to share their views on
the area and showed strong enthusiasm for the name
Sheffield Lakeland. Photos Ignite Imaginations
125

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The harnessing of the power of water -
both its challenges and opportunities - is
a very strong theme in this landscape.
Developments and events from the
Victorian era can sit alongside some of the
challenges of flood management in modern
times. Leisure use of the Sheffield Lakeland
area is both a modern phenomenon, as well
as a historical one, from the changing use of
ancient highways to the Sheffield Lakeland’s
bus tours of the 1950s, to the recent Grand
Depart for the 2014 Le Tour de France.
The trials of Second World War prisoners
held at the Redmires POW Camp in the
1940s and eventually choosing to settle in a
foreign land, resonate with the experiences
of refugees today, and Sheffield’s role
as a ‘City of Sanctuary’. These linkages
and stories can help people to better
understand the landscape, reinforce a sense
of place, and reconnect people with their
own family story.
Below: The Sheffield Clarion Ramblers was
founded by G. H. B. Ward in Sheffield in 1900. The
Clarion guidebooks have become collectors’ items.
The group finally disbanded in 2015. Photo C. Watts
Bottom: Bradfield is referred to as a ‘chocolate box’
village that is reminiscent of what Sheffield would
have been like many years ago – a secret gem in
the Peak District National Park. Photo courtesy of
Russell Hague Photography
Communities see the area as significant
as open space for recreation, and a living
landscape that also supporting many micro
businesses.
126 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Cultural traditions in
Sheffield Lakeland
Long standing traditions form a strong
identity for those living and visiting the area
which have persisted more strongly than in
the rest of Sheffield, partly due to the area’s
rural location and settled communities.
Some of the traditions are family orientated
with links going back generations – brass
bands, male voice choirs and the tradition
of local carols are prime examples. These
factors contribute to the strong sense of
community found throughout the area –
including in the larger population centres
such as Stocksbridge (population 13,000).
forgotten part of the national park a ‘locals’
secret’. Problems common to many urban
fringe areas were raised – loss of community
facilities, concerns about planning decisions
and the impact of new development on the
character of the community, the limitations of
rural transport services.
Dungworth based community group Soundpost run
Sheffield carol workshops and events throughout December
helping to pass this tradition to a new generation.
Significance for recreation
The Peak District has national significance
for outdoor recreation and Sheffield has the
accolade of being the UK’s greenest city.
Sheffield is well known as a city for outdoor
recreation enthusiasts.
The significance of the area as a place of
recreation, peace and contemplation for
people living in the city came through strongly
in the ORRG surveys, although there was less
awareness that much of the Sheffield Lakeland
area is within the Peak District National Park.
Respondents clearly felt a tension between
widening access and knowledge of the area
and the potential significance to the tourism
economy and the oft-stated desire to keep a
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
People were very willing to share their feelings about
Sheffield Lakeland during our workshops – the passion
that communities feel for their town or village comes
through strongly. Photos Ignite Imaginations
127

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
In total, 80% of survey respondents
described the local landscape as ‘extremely
important’ to them. Agreeing that access
to the reservoirs and river valleys for longer
walks and various informal leisure activities
was the main attraction. Many stakeholders
emphasised the attractions of water - the
reservoirs, the smaller dams and the river
valleys - set in a ‘wilder’ landscape of moors,
farmland and woodland.
However, there are significant barriers
preventing people from using the area.
Almost a third of respondents said they
needed more information about where to
go, with another large group stating they
don’t know what they can do when they
get there. Fewer users mentioned specific
attributes such as local history, cultural
heritage or wildlife and nature; suggesting
these features are not currently explained
adequately to contribute to people’s
enjoyment of the area.
Sheffield city has a wide spectrum
immigrant and student population, which
enjoys its first interaction with their image
of a wild English landscape, (Brontë-esk),
via Sheffield Lakeland. There is a significant
opportunity to support more BME and
refugee families to explore the area.
Environmental education activities currently
take place within the area. In addition to
the work of the Outdoor learning team at
SRWT, there is a forest school based at Glen
Howe Park and Yorkshire Water has a water
treatment education centre at Ewden water
treatment works. However, schools in the
vicinity are often travelling to locations away
from the Sheffield for outdoor learning and
there is a significant opportunity to increase
educational use of the landscape.
Above: Multi-user trails allow people with different
interests to explore the Sheffield Lakeland area.
Photo Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome
128 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Local voices - Sheffield Lakeland in our own words
During the development period, in addition
to the ORRG survey, a range of face to face
activities were undertaken to collect local
views about what makes the Sheffield
Lakeland area special to people who live in
it and visit it.
of findings from the five galas. The larger a
word appears in the cloud, the more times
it was mentioned during the community
consultation events.
The larger communities still carry on the
tradition of a local gala, with gala queen,
brass bands and activities such as tug of
war (Oughtibridge) or find the cow pat
(Broomhead Show). The SLLP Consultation
and Engagement officer invited attendees
at five galas to say what made Sheffield
Lakeland special for them.
At the end of each event the feedback
was converted into a ‘word cloud’. The
detailed feedback and word cloud for each
community event can be seen in Appendix
12. The word cloud below is a compilation
Above: Word cloud. Main image: Worrall Gala,
summer 2017. Photo C. Watts
129

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The community events also proved a rich source of
anecdotes about life in the area. For example:
I used to walk to Canyards with my
mum when I was a child to pick
bilberries to sell, so that my mum
could buy us winter shoes. We used
to pick baskets and baskets full and
have them all in the cellar.
Lady at Worrall Gala, approx. 80 years
Things that people like included different
types of recreational access, the views, the
community spirit and the sense that the
area is undiscovered by tourism. When asked
about aspects of the Sheffield Lakeland
area that people regarded as a problem or
that could be improved a range of themes
emerged including balancing wildlife
conservation and recreational access,
changing the behaviour of inconsiderate
visitors or road users, better information
and facilities, more interpretation of local
stories and history.
Sheffield Lakeland winters can leave
rural communities isolated - local
farmers play a vital role in keeping
the roads open, Photo T. Bagshaw
130 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Things people like about Sheffield Lakeland
• Perfect dog walking country
• Running
• Mountain biking
• Footpaths and access to the countryside
• A fantastic asset on our doorstep, running, family walks, dog walks
• Undiscovered
• So close to the city, could be anywhere
• Community spirit
• I wouldn’t live anywhere else
• Lived all over the world, came back here
• Views from Edgemount across the 3 reservoirs ‘the best view in England’
• The view as you come round the corner at the top of Jaw Bone Hill
• It’s perfect as it is, don’t change anything just keep looking after it.
• Like to catch the bus to Lodge Moor and walk back via Stanage, Strines,
Dale Dike to Worrall
• Like to catch the bus to Stocksbridge and walk back to Worrall via Oughtibridge
• Damflask and Agden Combination – like that you know you will always see
people around Damflask, so feel safe. Like being able to finish at the village
green or the Post Office café.
• Dale Dike – super quiet. Like spotting crossbills.
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
131

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
What could be improved?
• More opportunities for open water swimming
• More geocaching
• Runners sometimes find traps or dead birds on the moors
• More biodiversity – and an end to persecution of birds of prey
• Keep some wilder bits for wildlife
• Dogs at Damflask off lead a problem and fouling
• Dogs on leads – my friend has lost a number of sheep.
• Fed up with people leaving poo bags in trees
• Barn conversions are reducing the available food supply for barn owls
• Some footpaths so boggy impassable in places
• Footpaths get overgrown in summer; more cutting back would be helpful –
otherwise very good
• New housing developments threatened
• Would like to know more about the history of Wigtwizzle and
pre-reservoir valleys and villages
• More local walk maps – with more detail than you can get off the OS map
• Better large-scale maps to show footpaths with details like stiles or gates
• Better interpretation for children to encourage them on longer walks
• Good push chair friendly routes and knowing where to go and that
we won’t get stuck part way.
• Better toilets at Bradfield
• More pre-industrial revolution history and archaeology – especially Neolithic
• Better / more interpretation of the flood – children learn it at school,
but visitors coming in don’t know about it.
• A trail running down the Loxley, showing where the mills and mill wheels were.
• Saving Little Matlock Water Wheel.
• Better awareness from road users about cyclists on country lanes
• Safe places to horse ride, we don’t feel safe on the roads, but the bridleways
don’t connect without using them.
• Car park often too busy at Langsett – off-putting
132 SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
In early 2018, community arts organisation
Ignite Imaginations was commissioned to
explore responses from local community
groups under the heading ‘What Sheffield
Lakeland Means to Me?’ A local artist used
a number of creative approaches to explore
the positives and improvements needed in
Sheffield Lakeland and this resulted in very
honest and detailed work which included
collages, paintings, photographs, ceramics
and questionnaires.
The groups involved were:
• Underbank Art Group
• Greaves House Care Farm (adults with
learning difficulties)
• Stocksbridge Writers Group
• Oughtibridge Primary School
Top: Over 300 people contributed their views about
Sheffield Lakeland at the summer galas. Photo T.
Bagshaw
Second from top. middle, bottom: An artist worked with
a range of community groups to explore their feelings
about the landscape – the results were amazing! Photos
Ignite Imaginations.
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
133

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Participants at the arts workshops
expressed many views in common with
people who had attended the community
galas. For example, when asked what they
valued about the area:
• Participants said that that they like the
beautiful landscape and rich wildlife in
the area.
• They also commented on the community
spirit and kindness of the residents.
• The area is well conserved, peaceful and
tranquil.
• The area is familiar and close to home. It is
part of everyday life for the participants
When asked what worries they had for
the future of the area most participants
expressed their concerns about new
housing and other developments in the
area. For example:
• Nature will be threatened by other human
activities such as fly tipping and fracking.
• Farming in the area will diminish in the
future.
• Some participants commented on the
fierce cold wind and unusual cold snap
(Beast from the East, February 2018).
When asked about hopes for the future,
comments included:
• Wanting the area to be better conserved
and cared for. A participant hoped that
there will be a balance between farming,
forestry and recreation.
• A hope for more accessible paths and
facilities for disable people, more benches
and picnic areas so that it will be easier
for some people to enjoy the area.
• Hope that new residents coming into the
area will pick up the local community
spirit.
• Better career opportunities and training
schemes for local people.
The wide range of written and visual
responses to the landscape generated
through the workshops will be used as part
of an exhibition about the aspirations for the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
during spring and summer 2018. A video
recording the workshops and participants
talking about what Sheffield Lakeland
landscape means to them can be viewed
via this link.
Rowers on Damflask Reservoir, Photo T. Bagshaw
134

OUR STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
Participants were asked to express
their emotional response to the
Sheffield Lakeland landscape.
Words used include ‘feeling at
home’, ‘safe’, ‘freedom’, ‘sense of
belonging’ and ‘identity’.
Poems written by members of Stocksbridge Creative Writers’ Workshop:
What Sheffield Lakeland Means to Me
Vastness. Aloneness
A sea of purple and gold
A valley
Meandering streams leading where?
Hidden life
Man bird a beast
Sun now
Bleak winter to come
Find one’s inner peace
When day is done.
Trickling water forms tiny streams
Growing, endlessly pouring
Foaming puddles, waterfalls
Noisy, deafening roaring
Picnics in summer near the water’s edge
Paddling, jumping, making a splash
Playing games on stepping stones
Learning how to fish!
But water can hold peril
It’s dark and cold and deep
Neath its surface, danger lurking
Can mean eternal sleep
We need water to sustain us
For industry and for sport
To ride on and to swim in
To leave this Island’s ports.
SLLP LCAP Statement of Significance
135

Aims and Objectives
“While the LCAP will form the
heart of our Partnership, it is just
a step on a journey and each
organisation will continue to
work towards this vision.”
136 SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives

The Scope of our Plan
What we want to do towards
our vision
Limitations of the plan
(agreeing to disagree)
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership has adopted the vision
statement set out in Chapter 3 as both our
goal and the creed by which each partner
can work together toward a common
purpose. The Landscape Conservation
Action Plan, (LCAP), and the supporting
projects are our agreed, joint programme for
the period 2018-2023. While the LCAP will
form the heart of our Partnership, it is just a
step on a journey and each organisation will
continue to work towards this vision.
We are carrying out a range of ‘landscape
scale projects’ focussed upon nature
reserves and local wildlife sites, the forestry
estate and woodlands and working with
water. These will enhance the landscape
for wildlife and help protect people from
flooding through enhancing the provision
of ecosystem services. These aims are
supported by a training programme to help
retain important features in the landscape,
archaeology projects that both engage
communities and inform our landscape
scale work and species based projects
which will help focus our work for a broad
audience and guide our actions.
Woven through all of these activities, sits
a range of projects to bring communities
along with us on this journey. We are
supporting existing and new groups who
share our vision, but are concentrating on
narrower fields. All of our projects have
a ‘communication strand’, where project
leads will explain their actions for a wider
audience and set them in a broader
landscape context. In addition, we have a
number of projects whose objectives are
to engage directly with existing and new
communities in our landscape.
Our current plan is limited by time, funds
and the composition of the partnership.
In order to meet the limitations of time
and budget the Landscape Conservation
Action Plan includes a range of time limited,
budgeted projects we will deliver together
with a sustainability and legacy programme
designed to ensure the partnership grows
in ambition during the period 2018-23. The
limitations enforced by the composition
of the partnership is more complex, but
needs to be described with clarity so that
those outside the partnership can better
understand why those limitations exist.
Some projects, though important to the story of the
Sheffield Lakeland area are beyond the scope of the current
plan. Water wheel restoration falls into this category,
although we will support local groups to interpret and raise
the profile of the area’s industrial heritage. Photo C. Watts
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives
137

Woven through all of these
activities, sits a range of
projects to bring communities
along with us on this journey
138 SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives

Heritage Lottery Fund
All of the projects being delivered within
our Landscape Conservation Action Plan
are funded, (in total or in part), by the
Heritage Lottery Fund, (HLF), as such all of
our work must fit within its aims. The HLF
supports all kinds of projects, as long as
they make a lasting difference for heritage,
people and communities. These vary from
restoring natural landscapes to rescuing
neglected buildings, from recording
diverse community histories to providing
life-changing skills training. We are not in
a position to develop and deliver projects
which do not meet these criteria.
Partners
We have partners who represent industry,
business and leisure, community support
and services, natural environment and
cultural heritage in the Landscape. These
partners may have views, positions and
ambitions which are not always in line with
each other. The agreement to work together
where we agree, with the understanding
that each partner will pursue external goals
and may in fact be in conflict around other
issues, (for instance around planning issues),
has to be recognised.
The Partnership includes public authorities
and government agencies, organisations
which have legal restrictions regarding
campaigning and position statements. The
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
is a mechanism of the partners and as such
our plans, our projects and our actions can
‘speak’ on behalf of our partners but the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
as an entity cannot espouse a position in its
own right.
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives
139

Our Aims and Objectives
In order to achieve the vision set out in
Chapter 3, we have developed the aims and
objectives for the Landscape Partnership
described below. There are four aims and
for each aim we have also agreed a set
of objectives which each of the planned
projects will help to deliver. The overarching
aim to achieve a more natural and resilient
landscape sits over the other three as can
be seen in the model below.
The Partnership has agreed to deliver a
range of projects during this Landscape
Conservation Action Plan period 2018-
23. These projects will take us toward
our vision for Sheffield Lakeland
through meeting the following aims
and objectives. All projects fit within our
objectives and are a step on a journey to
our aims and long term vision.
A more natural and resilient Sheffield Lakeland landscape
for everyone to value, enjoy, understand and feel part of
OUR VISION
Achieving a more natural and resilient landscape
Connecting the landscape; developing long-term coordinated
landscape-scale management plans for the whole area,
working across land ownership and boundaries
A STEP ON A JOURNEY
Creating a bigger,
better and more
joined up natural
environment for
people and wildlife
Achieving a better
recorded and valued
cultural heritage
celebrated by local
people and visitors
Having a community
with greater
understanding of
the local heritage
and more people
helping look after it
140 SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives

Aim 1: Achieving a more natural and resilient landscape
This is an over-arching aim which
encompasses the core project and
improves the connectivity of the landscape;
developing long-term coordinated
landscape-scale management plans for
the whole Sheffield Lakeland area, from
the urban fringe to the moorlands, working
across land ownerships and boundaries.
We will do this by:
• Identifying and managing risks resulting
from climate change and enhancing
ecosystem services (see Objective 1)
Objective 1: A resilient landscape. The
Partnership will identify and manage risks
resulting from climate change and enhance
ecosystem services, by coordinating a vision
for woodland and forestry management
throughout the landscape to mitigate
climate change through a resilient and
connected woodland mosaic, safeguarding
drinking water quality and reducing flood
risk to the city.
• Identifying, connecting and interpreting
key habitats (see Objective 2)
• Identifying and interpreting cultural and
archaeological heritage features (see
Objective 3)
• Identifying access routes and gateways
to the landscape and heritage (see
Objective 4).
Below: A buzzard soars high over the Sheffield Lakeland
landscape. Photo Russell Hague
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives
141

Aim 2: Creating a bigger, better and more joined up
natural environment for people and wildlife
Objective 2: A suite of natural heritage
projects that further the aims of ‘Making
Space for Nature’, (Lawton et al 2010).
This incorporates the following:
• Investing in our core sites: bringing Local
Wildlife Sites into positive management
by surveying, developing and delivering
new habitat management plans.
• Enhancing Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust nature reserves in the
programme area, making them more
resilient. Creating a new nature reserve
at Midhope reservoir by enhancing and
managing the site specifically for wildlife.
Supporting local groups who are working
to conserve and improve places for
wildlife and cultural heritage.
• Co-ordinating the management of
woodlands across the Landscape –
bringing Yorkshire Water, Sheffield City
Council and Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust and other smaller private
owners together to improve the woodland
habitat for wildlife and people.
• Creating the buffer and stepping
stones: Identifying and enhancing
important small sites and creating
new sites for wildlife with local farmers
and landowners. Working with the
water: moors, bogs, flushes, streams,
reservoirs and rivers that flow through
this landscape creating a network for
nature. Working with farmers to address
agricultural pollution and slowing the
flow to help safeguard people and their
cultural heritage downstream.
• Supporting species, working to support
key and indicator species, particularly
associated with this landscape, both
in the past and present. Creating
opportunities and influencing habitat
management for osprey, goshawk, barn
owls, bats, water voles, nightjar, flycatchers
and willow tit.
Whiskered Bat. Photo South Yorkshire Bat Group
142 SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives

Aim 3: Achieving a better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and visitors
Objective 3: A suite of cultural heritage
projects that investigate and connect
people with our natural history and
cultural heritage in such a way as to create
a sense of place at a landscape level.
To include the following:
• Surveying and interpreting Canyards
Hills SSSI, and the connections between
the Landscape, geology and habitats,
evidencing a sense of time in a landscape
of change.
• Improve access to our most treasured
and popular heritage so more people
can gain access while heritage features
are protected. Co-ordinating the
management of gateway sites and
information sources to protect the
landscape and deliver a cohesive and
compelling message regarding the value,
importance and sensitivity of the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape.
• Involving communities in exploring and
interpreting the area’s cultural heritage
from earliest habitation to 20th century
history through surveying and recording
lesser known archaeological sites,
focusing on woodlands, nature reserves,
the upland moors and river corridors.
• Finding our Heritage Highways; surveying
and recording the network of historic
routes. Telling the story of the traders and
the goods they exchanged and increasing
our understanding of the network of
routes found in the Landscape.
• Raising awareness, providing skills training
and actively restoring the lattice of dry
stone walls that characterise the farmed
landscape of the Sheffield Lakeland area.
• Telling and recording local stories,
connecting cultural history with today’s
communities and issues.
Naked in Storrs Wood, Stoneface Creative
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives
143

Aim 4: A community with a greater understanding of their
local heritage and more people helping to look after it
Objective 4: A range of projects that support
the principle of a landscape for all to learn
about, value, experience and enjoy. These
projects will improve and promote access
in its broadest sense: physical, intellectual,
and cultural:
• Facilitating accessibility at key points
on the public rights of way network,
for example by changing stiles to gates
and linking guided walks to bus routes.
Developing appropriate leaflets, signage
and interpretation to help more people
and new audiences explore the area’s
natural and built heritage whilst protecting
the most sensitive locations. Improving the
joined up management of gateways to the
landscape to mitigate conflicting land uses.
• Recruiting, co-ordinating and training
volunteers to undertake a range of tasks
e.g. surveying, recording, land management
and support for community involvement.
Creating a better skilled volunteer cohort
and offering volunteers a broader range of
opportunities throughout the Partnership.
• Engaging young people and school
children in new the learning offers which
will include environmental education
sessions and farm visits linked to the
curriculum. In particular, building
connections with schools in the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape area, and
those located in the most deprived
communities in the heart of the city.
• Engage communities who are not
currently accessing the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape, including isolated or
vulnerable individuals and communities
with limited mobility or confidence.
Participants will take steps into their local
green space, building up to supported
visits and exploring of the wider
opportunities in the Landscape.
• Use art in the Landscape and digital
technology, to involve individuals and
communities who would not normally
show an interest in the natural or cultural
heritage of the area.
• Offer a community grants scheme to
local voluntary and community groups
to support initiatives which fit with the
aims and objectives of the Partnership.
This might include paying for expertise or
materials to help survey, record, restore
and/or informally ‘adopt’ a heritage
feature in the Landscape.
“I love going over Lodge Moor – it’s like
Austria but we don’t appreciate it.”
Quote from a local resident
144 SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives

School trip to Our Cow Molley, Dungworth
“... building connections with schools in the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape area, and those
located in the most deprived communities in
the heart of the city.”
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives
145

Threats and opportunities
Sheffield Lakeland is a recognised and
loved landscape, the reservoirs, the
farms and farmers, the communities
who live in the area, the links to our
recent and distant past and the
accessibility of the wilder landscape all
create a location many people can
enjoy. However, much of this value is
poorly understood and managed...
The Landscape supplies our drinking water,
helps protect the city of Sheffield from
flooding and offers a corridor for species
movement, as well as supporting diversified
farming and leisure opportunities. Yet much
of what we value about Sheffield Lakeland is
under threat.
The Landscape Partnership has come together
now, because the threat to our landscape has
reached a ‘tipping point’, and we need to take
action before it reaches a point of no return.
Our Landscape Conservation Action Plan,
2018 -23, sets the scene and offers a range
of projects directed at confronting the most
compelling threats.
The farmed landscape is going through a period of change and uncertainty. Photo T. Bagshaw
146
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives

Loss of habitat and soil degradation
Throughout the landscape, even within
the Peak District National Park, the loss
of valuable low input agricultural land,
with all the associated wildlife benefits
and ecosystem services is apparent and
continuing. Wet pasture fields and moorland
fringe mosaic associated with small tenant
farms are being bought up, walls removed
and the vegetation ploughed and replanted
with arable crops. Headline Figures from
RSWT ‘what next for Farming’ estimates soil
degradation across the UK alone has a cost
to the environment of £1.2bn per year.
Natural England’s recent report Local
Wildlife Sites Affected by the Urban Fringe,
(Routh 2016), highlighted that:
‘For sites in private ownership, those in
close proximity to urban areas are 35%
less likely to be in positive management
compared to 46% for those not near urban
areas.’
Sheffield currently has a total number
of 319 local sites comprising 253 Local
Wildlife Sites and 66 Local Geological Sites.
Through the actions of the Local Wildlife
Sites Partnership the total number of local
sites currently in positive management will
be 144 or 45.1% (all LWS) in 2018. This is an
increase of 4, (1.2%), on the position at year
end of 2016/2017.
Opportunities for action
The Sheffield City Council Ecology
Team will be addressing the pressure
on Local Wildlife Sites through a
programme of survey, management
prescriptions and land management.
Not only will this help address
examples of decline directly, but will
also raise the profile and awareness of
the importance of Local Wildlife Sites
in a connected landscape.
The Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife
Trust will be carrying out a wide range
of habitat improvement projects on
their nature reserves, creating more
resilient and manageable habitats to
secure them as core natural reserves
in a threatened landscape.
Yorkshire Water will dedicate their
landholding around Midhope
Reservoir to nature conservation,
creating a ‘preserve’ for some of
the most threatened species in our
landscape.
A range of smaller non-partner
organisations will undertake
habitat management of other areas,
including; Wadsley & Loxley Common,
St Nicholas Church cemetery and the
Rivelin Valley. From the Partnership
they will receive resources and
support to help improve their
sites and create a more connected
landscape.
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives
147

Carr House Meadow SRWT nature reserve
is surviving example of a habitat type
under threat. Photo Sarah Sidgwick
The Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
will be carrying out a wide range of habitat
improvement projects on their nature reserves,
creating more resilient and manageable
habitats to secure them as core natural
reserves in a threatened landscape.
148 SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives

Forestry operations
The largest forestry operators in the Sheffield
Lakeland area - Sheffield City Council and
Yorkshire Water - are scheduled to undertake
significant felling and replanting works
during the next five years as part of their
woodland management programmes. This
work encompasses over 200 hectares of
woodland.
A lack of co-ordinated woodland
management has the potential to negatively
impact on a wide range of woodland birds,
which have already declined by 17% since
1970, (UK State of Nature Report). The
forestry plantations around Broomhead
and Morehall reservoirs currently support a
diverse range of breeding birds and summer
visitors such as cuckoo (Red Listed Birds of
Conservation Concern (BOCC), 50% decline
(Sheffield Bird Study Group - SBSG), s41
priority species) and the spotted flycatcher
(Red Listed (BOCC), 40% decline (SBSG), s41
priority species).
Opportunities for action
Through the Partnership, Sheffield
City Council is leading a collaborative
programme of joint working including
Yorkshire Water, The Steel Valley
Project and Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust through the Woodland
Heart project. This will encompass
a range of woodland management
projects undertaken together to
create more resilient and diversified
woodlands and forest areas. The
management of the woodlands will
be improved for a range of wildlife
including small woodland birds,
goshawk and nightjar. There will be a
further opportunity for a community
based small timber business model to
be developed.
The goshawk will be a guiding
‘symbol’ for the Woodland Heart
project, helping to focus planning
of forestry operations and shaping
the progression of the forestry vision
to include the retention of suitable
nesting habitats across Sheffield
Lakeland.
Goshawk. Photo Andy Morffew
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives
149

Recreational pressure
Each man kills the thing he loves
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword!
Oscar Wilde
There is no disputing the popularity of the
Sheffield Lakeland area. It is accessible,
friendly and offers a wide range of leisure
opportunities. Sheffield City promotes itself as
the Outdoor City and, rightly, we all espouse
the benefits of interacting with natural places
and exercise. Yet the result of success is the
damage we and our community do not only
to the physical features of the landscape, but
to the pleasures each other enjoy. Lack of
knowledge and understanding of the area’s
heritage by visitors can lead to negative
impacts across the landscape. Appropriate
management of recreational pressure points
is needed to improve public access and
enjoyment, whilst ensuring the natural and
built heritage of the Sheffield Lakeland area
is appropriately enjoyed, understood and
protected.
Opportunities
The gateways to our landscape, the
points where most people go for their
day out, the starting point for the more
adventurous, are owned and managed
by Partnership members. The creation
of a joined-up approach to managing
these gateway locations and creating
robust routes through our landscape
is one way to mitigate increasing
visitor numbers. Supplying the right
information about what people can,
or should not do, in order to enjoy our
heritage without damaging it is a key
outcome from our project.
Sheffield Lakeland is a varied landscape
and in order to tailor interventions,
gateways to increasing access to
heritage in the Sheffield Lakeland
landscape have been divided into five
categories which will help structure
how we support access to the
landscape:
• Highly used recreational hubs
• Locally important gateways
• Public transport gateways
• Information gateways
• Support gateways
Gateways to the landscape need a
joined up management approach
150
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives

This word cloud was generated from
positive and negative comments
about the Sheffield Lakeland area
during summer 2017.
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives
151

Development and
dereliction
While good communication links, a thriving
city and the attraction of countryside
fringe housing creates a market for new
out of town developments, the decline of
traditional industries, contaminated land
and clean-up costs have left a legacy of
dereliction – particularly in the Loxley Valley.
An example of flytipping at Stannington,
Photo Ignite Imaginations
Opportunity
As described in Chapter 5, the
Landscape Partnership has already
developed a Sheffield Lakeland
specific Landscape Character
Assessment, which has been adopted
across the Partnership (Chapter 5).
While as a partnership we are limited
in our ability to influence or drive
development, the provision of specific
information of this type provides a
framework to support planning and
development at a strategic level. The
Partnership has agreed to work with
the two Sheffield Lakeland planning
authorities – the Peak Park and
Sheffield City Council to discuss the
adoption of the Landscape Character
Assessment as supplementary
planning guidance. Existing work
such as the Loxley Valley Design
Statement developed by Loxley
Valley Protection Society will also be
referenced in this process.
The former Hepworth’s brick works now lie derelict, blighting the heart of the
Loxley Valley – the land has been owned by Bovis homes for over a decade
(Loxley Valley Protection Society pers comm). Photo K. Tomkins
152
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives

Climate change
‘The global climate is changing and will
continue to change over the coming
century. Most climate scientists agree
that much of this is attributable to
increased atmospheric concentrations of
‘greenhouse’ gases produced by human
activities. Even if we manage to limit
future greenhouse gas emissions, current
and historical emissions mean that a
certain amount of additional warming
is inevitable. This presents risks for
agriculture and forestry, business, health
and wellbeing, buildings and infrastructure
and the natural environment.’
UK Climate Change Risk Assessment, DEFRA 2012
Sheffield is particularly vulnerable to sudden
high impact flood events such as the one
which occurred in 2007. Such events are
considered likely to increase in frequency as
a result of climate change. Drought events
may further impoverish soils or lead to
increased risk of wildfires. The accelerating
arrival of new pests and diseases is already
providing significant challenges for forestry
and wildlife.
Climate change mitigation consists of
actions to limit the magnitude or rate of
long-term climate change. In the context
of Sheffield Lakeland, mitigation may be
achieved by increasing the capacity of
carbon sinks, which for example might
include peatland restoration and the
planting of additional trees. Climate change
adaptation means providing the conditions
or infrastructure that help people and
wildlife cope with the impacts of climate
change. A number of species present in
Sheffield Lakeland are at the limit of the
northern or southern range. Ensuring
habitat corridors or stepping stones are
in good condition is a way of facilitating
the movement of species in responses
to climate change – this is an example of
facilitating climate change adaptation.
Opportunities
While it would be possible to
consider a wide range of potential
mitigation outcomes from the
Landscape Conservation Action Plan
projects, from encouraging people
to visit the area by public transport
rather than drive, through to tree
planting to capture carbon, our
opportunity within the scope of the
Partnership to significantly mitigate
climate change is both limited and
difficult to quantify.
However, it is important to remember
that climate change is caused
by individual acts and that the
cumulative outputs of individual
projects will therefore contribute to
both mitigation and adaptation, even
though it is difficult to measure at
this scale.
For example, our Working with Water
project will link habitat management
for wildlife across our uplands,
forestry, nature reserves and private
farmland with the principles of natural
flood management. These projects
will concentrate on habitats with
wetlands, headwaters and upland
streams to ‘slow the flow’, reduce
flood risk and soil erosion, at the
same time as benefitting wildlife and
helping to retain the visual character
of the landscape.
Contines overleaf.
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives
153

The estimated total costs of the
2007 summer floods to Sheffield
was £135m, including infrastructure
and home repairs and claimed two
lives. (Sheffield City Council Climate
Change Adaptation Strategy, 2013).
At the same time that the city
has been reviewing plans for high
capital investment engineered flood
defences, there has also been a
tendency for the authority to take
opportunities to divest its tenanted
farms in the Sheffield Lakeland
area, which have not been seen as
an asset. Working with Sheffield
Hallam University, the Working with
Water project will look to create a
quantitative argument for retention of
the Council’s agricultural estate as an
investment against future flooding.
Above: Sheffield City Council owns a number of tenanted
farms in the Sheffield Lakeland area which will benefit
from the Working with Water project. Photo N. Abbas
Below: Rushy Dike high on the moors eventually flows
down into the river Loxley. Photo C. Watts
154 SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives

BREXIT
The transition of the UK from being a
member of the European Union, (EU), to
being a non-member will occur during the
lifetime of this Landscape Conservation
Action Plan. Much of the environmental
guidance and supporting resources for land
management in the UK have been derived
from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP),
which came into being in 1962 and a range
of EU Directives such as the Birds Directive
(2009), Water Framework Directive (2000)
and Habitats Directive (1992). The current
Environment Minister, Michael Gove MP,
has assured rural industries that support
will be retained through to 2022, that
environmental protection will be migrated
from EU to UK legislation and that future
land based support will be directed toward
‘good works’ such as wildflower meadows
and countryside access.
Opportunity
Working at a landscape scale, the
Partnership has opportunities to
incorporate ecosystem services, such
as countryside recreation and natural
flood management in its work. As
the UK transitions from the current
systems of rural support to one more
closely based upon the provision of
public benefit, our monitoring and
evaluation programmes will be ideally
placed to demonstrate the positive
links between such eco-system
services, the landscape, heritage and
communities.
The Wildlife Trusts’ report ‘What next for
Farming?’, (RSWT 2018), states that the
current UK CAP budget of £3.1bn should be
retained and invested in a new land asset
management policy which gives positive
incentive to farmers to manage land for
wildlife benefit, climate change mitigation/
adaptation and public access. RSWT
has recommended that post-BREXIT, an
equivalent of 10% of the CAP budget could
be invested in natural flood management.
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives
155

Upland pool, Hoyles Farm. Photo N. Abbas
“The financial squeeze on public spending
means that the people of Sheffield need to
understand and quantify the importance
and value of protecting and enhancing the
Sheffield Lakeland landscape, in order for the
public authorities... or regulated companies...
to be able to commit the resources to do so.”
156 SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives

Lack of understanding
While honeypot sites across the Sheffield
Lakelands are under pressure because of
their popularity, other potentially more
robust areas are little exploited. There is
room for more people to enjoy, value and
therefore invest in the protection of the
heritage of the area, providing the right
information is provided to the right people
in the right way. The Sheffield Lakeland
area is Sheffield’s ‘back garden’, but many
urban communities in Sheffield know very
little about it and have never visited it.
What people do not know about, they are
unlikely to value or help protect.
The financial squeeze on public spending
means that the people of Sheffield need to
understand and quantify the importance
and value of protecting and enhancing
the Sheffield Lakeland landscape, in order
for the public authorities such as the City
and the Peak Park, or regulated companies
such as Yorkshire Water to be able to
commit the resources to do so.
Opportunity
A number of projects have been
designed with a specific community
engagement focus. These including
Connecting Steps – an urban
communities outreach programme
and Landscape Connections which
will provide opportunities for Sheffield
school children to learn where their food
comes from through farm visits in the
Sheffield Lakeland area. Other projects
will encourage people to find their own
history in the stories of the landscape,
building connections and sense of place.
However, as is shown on the network
diagram, all projects incorporate a
community engagement and learning
element – from citizen science to
guided walks, learning opportunities
and workshops through which the
Partnership will engage the wider
community in the heritage of the
Sheffield Lakeland landscape.
Every project in the Landscape
Conservation Action Plan has
community engagement as one
of its golden threads
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives
157

Partnership risks
Landscape Partnerships arise through
opportunity and potential. The Heritage
Lottery Fund has created an opportunity for
a group of organisations to become partners
to realise objectives with the support of
lottery funding. During the delivery of
the Landscape Conservation Action Plan
partners need individual and joint potential
to be realised, should they be disappointed
the developing trust and mutual sympathy
will be eroded. The community and
landscape of the Sheffield Lakeland area
may suffer overall should the current Plan
only deliver a time limited programme and
the Partnership fail to build longer-term
relationships and initiatives.
Our Partnership is already considering and
developing a Legacy Programme, designed
to deliver new commitments by way of the
next Landscape Conservation Action Plan,
joint management protocols for partner
assets around key locations, shared capacity
building and the means to raise resources
to deliver on this. There is no desire to
create a new organisation to represent and
brand the Sheffield Lakeland area as an
outcome of the Partnership, instead our aim
is to work towards a better and stronger
partnership of existing organisations.
Wet flush above Agden
158 SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Risk Register
Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Who will lead this
Projects fail to start on time, leading
to the possibility that they cannot be
completed by the end of the programme.
Low Medium
All project designers have been coached in
ensuring they understand scheduling their
projects. Given a four year programme with no
projects starting in the final year there should
be plenty of opportunity to 'manage' issues.
Each partner will be required to report against
expected progress at least every six months.
SLLP Project Manager
Projects complete at same time as the
SLLP Programme Manager contract ends.
Low Medium
Many of the project leads have 'end' their
projects at the very close of the overall
scheduled programme. It is important that
these projects are managed in such a way as
to be reporting as the end rather than after
they end.
SLLP Project
Manager with
support of Finance
and Admin Officer
and monitoring
and evaluation
consultants.
Loss of key individuals from the steering
group or delivery partner organisations.
Loss of key individuals from the steering
group or delivery partner organisations.
This is as much around organisational
memory as it is around skillsets. For
example, the SLLP had a number
of ‘sponsoring’ individuals from the
public sector during the early stages of
development who are no longer with the
organisation. This often leads to loss of
momentum at best and potentially loss of
commitment (with new representatives
less engaged than previous ones) and loss
of ‘memory’ where commitments were
made personally.
Medium Low
1. Ensure the link between LCAP and
Partnership Agreement is strong and that a
clear audit trail of commitments exists.
2. Maintain routine RAG reporting by the
Programme Manager to the steering group
to highlight any difficulties allowing the
steering group to take action at the earliest
stage.
3. Secure commitment of match funding
from public sector as early as possible.
Steering Group
supported by SLLP
Programme Manager
Continues overleaf
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives
159

Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Who will lead this
Loss of SLLP employed staff.
While no member of staff can be
‘irreplaceable’ the loss of staff poses risks
to continuity. Not everything is written
down and agreed, conversations, verbal
agreements and sympathy between
individuals can cause setbacks and delays.
Medium Low
1. Commit where possible to retain staff between
Development and Delivery.
2. Offer and fund long-term training / professional
opportunity to staff.
3. Ensure staff feel rewarded and supported
through effective line management.
4. Ensure effective record keeping and hand-over.
SLLP Project Manager
and SRWT as lead
partner and employer
Insufficient match funding.
There is a requirement that all match
funding is in place for year 1 of the
delivery phase and that the Partnership is
comfortable with the remaining years, but
it is possible to start delivery without all of
the match funding in place.
Low High
1. Enter the delivery phase with as much match
funding ‘banked’ as possible.
2. Where match funding is not confirmed allocate
those funds to specific projects against a
partner responsible for drawing down the
match funding or finding it themselves.
3. Continue to seek additional match funding
throughout the delivery phase.
SLLP Programme
Manager
A partner withdraws (delivery phase).
While the majority of partners in
the steering group are long-term
organisations unlikely to close altogether,
it is not unforeseeable that one or more
may simply withdraw from delivering,
sponsoring or match funding a project.
While it may possible to transfer projects
to another sponsor, in a worst case
scenario an organisation may leave having
spent HLF funds and having promised
to contribute to overall match funding.
This would result in a difficult shift in the
available HLF/Other funding balance.
Low Medium
1. Have a comprehensive partnership agreement
and signed delivery agreements.
2. Have regularly delivery group meetings to
identify warning signs of problems at an early
stage.
Maintain routine RAG reporting by Programme
Manager to the steering group to highlight
difficulties allowing the steering group to take
action at the earliest stage.
3. Only allow partners to claim grant funds as
project objectives are met, monitoring through
quarterly reporting.
4. Continue to identify further options for matched
funding as a buffer against such an occurrence.
SLLP Programme
Manager supported
by the steering group
and delivery group
Continues overleaf
160 SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives

Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Who will lead this
A project fails to deliver the expected
outputs.
It is possible that one or more project fails
to deliver the agreed outputs, including
targets and volunteer contributions. This
puts pressure on other projects to pick up
the slack, the longer a partner continues
to deliver a failing project the greater the
damage to the partnership and other
projects.
Low Medium
1. Create a claiming and reporting process that
requires delivery partners to report against
targets at least quarterly.
2. Maintain routine RAG reporting by the
Programme Manager to the steering group to
highlight difficulties allowing the steering group
to take action at the earliest stage.
SLLP Programme
Manager, supported
by the steering group
Legislative, or strategic change limits
ability to deliver.
We are entering a period of change
where very wide reaching strategies
and even legislation may change or be
lost altogether. This will include national
subsidy programmes and development
permissions etc. A significant change
could lead to one or more projects
becoming untenable.
Low Medium
1. Reduce reliance on match funding from
schemes such as Countryside Stewardship to a
minimum.
2. ‘Bank’ as much match funding from public
sector in particular as early as possible.
3. Work closely with steering group members
to assess the impact of changes as early as
possible and ‘course correct’ as necessary.
Steering Group
supported by SLLP
Programme Manager
SLLP LCAP Aims and Objectives
161

Summary of Key
Information from our
Project Plans
“What has changed since we first
submitted our idea to the Heritage
Lottery Fund, who is delivering them,
how they will be delivered, how
much they will cost and where they
will take place.”
162 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

Summary of Key Information
from our Project Plans
Between March 2018 and June 2019 the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
steering group, volunteers and staff have
been working to turn the original stage one
application into a detailed programme of
activity and events. Research projects and
scoping exercises have been carried out to
add detail and guide the direction of the
original outlines. Our vision for the landscape
has been clarified and a landscape character
assessment has been undertaken with an
accompanying review of the landscape
boundary. Partners have met to plan
and cost their projects in detail and with
consideration of each other’s ideas and the
community has been further consulted
in order to refine our purposes, outcomes
and outputs. This work has resulted in this
detailed Landscape Conservation Action
Plan, accompanying appendices and a
completed full application to the Heritage
Lottery Fund, with all the supporting
documentation that requires.
In this chapter we have attempted to
encapsulate the full range of projects; what
has changed since we first submitted our
idea to the Heritage Lottery Fund, who is
delivering them, how they will be delivered,
how much they will cost and where they will
take place.
Summary of significant
changes from the stage one
application
Resilience, fire prevention and invasive
species
Under Outcome 1, the initial application
discussed projects around resilience,
including fire prevention and invasive
species work. At an early stage in
development it became apparent that fire
prevention fell outside of any actual works
we are liable to carry out with the exception
of ‘Woodland Heart’ for which it is integral.
Scoping of an invasive species project made
it apparent that a stand-alone project would
not ‘fit’ within our Landscape Partnership,
but instead invasive species work is retained
throughout other projects.
Combined: ‘Creating buffer and stepping
stones’ with ‘Working with Water’
At an early stage in development it
became apparent that these two projects,
which are predominantly on third party
sites, would involve similar physical works
and engagement opportunities. As they
were both to be led by the same partner,
(Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust), it
made sense to combine them.
Species discussed: ‘White clawed crayfish’,
‘Breeding waders’ and ‘Otters’
A number of species were discussed in the
development application, including white
clawed crayfish and breeding waders. We
engaged Wildscapes CIC for ecological
support and when coordinating species
and habitat projects it was determined that
there were no suitable new sites for white
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information 163

claw crayfish in the landscape area and we
were not doing sufficient habitat work of the
right type to support a breeding wader subproject.
The Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife
Trust has recently led a highly successful
urban otter project, “Otterly Amazing”,
which was part of their HLF funded ‘Nature
Counts’ project. We would have liked to
expand upon that project and carried out
similar work in the Sheffield Lakeland,
however budget constraints mean we
were unable to allocate sufficient funds.
We will look to continue this work under
other programmes. The species chosen
for our ‘Supporting Species’ project will
all benefit directly from our work and/or
act as indicators of success of our work or
offer significant community engagement
opportunity.
Removed: Hoyle’s Farm cruck barn
The initial application discussed the
potential to renovate an important cruck
barn to create a camping barn in order to
retain it in the landscape. By the time the
development phase was underway this
barn had deteriorated to such a degree
that it is considered ‘un-saveable’. SLLP
looked for an alternative, similar, project
but no project partners came forward with
anything suitable. As a result the overall
project budget for the ‘Hidden Heritage’
archaeological project was increased and
other funds dispersed amongst projects.
Restructured: “Landscapes for Everyone to
Enjoy” and “Gateways to the Landscape”
Activities initially described under these two
projects included a range of information,
engagement and physical access projects.
As we developed the sub-themes, a range
of organisations came forward as the
‘partners’ to deliver specific physical access
projects; Steel Valley Project, Moors for
the Future, Yorkshire Water and Sheffield
and Rotherham Wildlife Trust. A range of
smaller (community) based groups came
forward with support for the information
and engagement element of the projects.
We decided to split the physical works into
access projects and combine the rest into
the gateway project.
Increased: “Community Grant Scheme”
The initial application requested £60,000
from HLF funds toward a Community
Grant Scheme, Bradfield Parish Council
decided they wished to match fund this
and then Stocksbridge Town Council also
decided they would like to as well. However,
this did not mean we could reduce the
HLF contribution too much as the match
funders would not then consider it match
funding. Both councils will be involved in
delivering it and are confident that it will
be an important opportunity to keep local
communities engaged during the delivery
phase.
Moved: Professional fees to staff salaries
and full cost recovery (FCR)
The development phase of a Landscape
Partnership is to both complete the
Landscape Conservation Action Plan and
draw up detailed project narratives and
budgets, explaining and describing how
projects will be delivered and resourced.
As this partnership has progressed our
requirements for salaries and FCR have
increased.
Using staff instead of professional fees:
As the development phase has progressed
the ‘shape’ of the budget has changed.
Some things have changed due to external
factors:
• For instance a sum of £20,000 for
professional fees to support outreach
work cannot follow the original
description as the organisation we were
going to work with no longer exists, the
new project outline includes SRWT staff
rather than professional fees.
164 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

Running projects as partners rather than
as contractors:
Other considerations have arisen from the
way budgets were aligned:
• For instance the Steel Valley Project was
identified as an organisation we would
work with, all the budgets assigned to
that work were under access provision
or habitat management with no salary
or related costs. The Steel Valley Project
will be delivering the projects envisaged,
but as partners rather than contractors,
therefore we would cover salaries and full
cost recovery rather than ‘contractors fees’
which would include those, plus surplus).
• Most of the professional fees to engage
Ecologists £61,000 are now included
within the costs of Project Ecologists for
the local wildlife sites.
Running projects in-house rather than via
external contracts:
Other projects have capital budgets which
could be put out to tender, but fall within
the work streams that the Partnership
already undertakes:
• Working with Water requires a project
manager and a land management team
to deliver and monitor activity on the
ground. SRWT had always planned to
deliver this ‘in-house’ and have now opted
to extend the hours of one of their Senior
Project Officers to cover the management
with Wildscapes (CIC) engaging a small
part/time team of workers to deliver the
work on the ground. This involves moving
budgets from ‘contractors’ to salaries and a
management fee into FCR.
• Habitat management and access
improvements to SRWT nature reserves
was also always planned to be delivered
‘in-house’. The Trust will spend the funds
as described in the original bid, but this
necessitates some use of existing staff to
‘manage’ these projects. In our second stage
submission we will be recognising this by
showing a cost under full cost recovery.
During development we created a proposal
document which was submitted to HLF to
‘manage’ these changes, which was broadly
accepted. This proposal, with draft figures, has
been updated with final figures and submitted
in full, (Appendix 17), with the application form.
Increases in match funding and support:
Stage 1 application Request to HLF Cash match
identified
Volunteer
contributions
Percentage HLF
support
£2,598,000 £416,000 £66,000 84%
Stage 2 submission Request to HLF Cash match
identified
Volunteer
contributions
Percentage HLF
support
£2,593,000 £628,000 £227,000 75%
(£ figures are rounded from detailed programme budgets and include non-recoverable VAT)
Cash match is outlined in the project summaries to follow and confirmation
letters are supplied in Appendix 18, in-kind and volunteer contributions are
identified in all detailed project briefs and outlined in the project summaries.
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
165

Photo C. Watts
This view of Bradfield Dale with
Agden, Dale Dike and Strines reservoirs
has been described by local people
as ‘the best view in England’.
166 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

The table below outlines (£,000s) the difference in budgets between the stage one
application and this Landscape Conservation Action Plan. It includes a short summary of the
original project and the current project in order to clarify some of the changes required.
Description in stage one
submission
Outcome 1: A more connected
and resilient landscape The Core
Project
Original budget
£,000s
New budget
£,000s
Updated summary description
The Core team / coordination
and legacy of the SLLP. A resilient
landscape: identify and manage
risks resulting from climate change
and enhance ecosystem services.
For example, by the strategic
management of invasive species,
reducing the spread of species
specific diseases, reducing fire
risk across heaths and woodlands,
safeguarding drinking water
quality and reducing flood risk to
the city.
891 688 The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership is a multi-partner programme
delivering a broad Landscape Conservation
Action Plan, (LCAP), with the Heritage
Lottery Fund, (HLF), Landscape Partnership
(LP) scheme as the main funding source.
Such programmes are complex and require
close supervision, the Core LP delivery
team will be 100% funded by the HLF and
will: administer the interactions between
partners and the HLF, run a number of
small ‘linking’ projects, deliver projects
where there is no lead (walling, supporting
local groups), line manage dedicated
project staff; Practical and Volunteer Officer
and Communications and Engagement
Officer, and coordinate legacy planning for
LCAP 23-33.
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
167

Outcome 2: Bigger, better
and more joined up natural
environment for people and
wildlife.
Original budget
£,000s
New budget
£,000s
Updated summary description
Bringing Local Wildlife Sites into, and sustaining them in positive conservation management and Canyards Hills
geological SSSI.
Investing in our core sites:
Bringing Local Wildlife Sites
into positive management
by surveying, developing
and delivering new habitat
management plans.
55 56 Investing in our core sites: bringing
Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs) into, and
sustaining them in positive conservation
management through the identification,
conservation, maintenance of species
and habitat features of substantive
conservation value and enhancement
thereof. This project will bring 4 sites
into positive conservation management,
including creation of 1 new LWS, and
ensure that 7 sites retain their existing
positive conservation management
status; without this project the latter
would drop out of positive conservation
management. This will be achieved
by surveying, developing new habitat
management briefs and delivering
conservation management. Canyard’s Hills
is an impressive ‘tumble down’ landscape,
we will undertake research and create
new physical and online information and
interpretation resources so that people
can find out more about it.
Investing in our Core Sites: enhancing Nature Reserves
Investing in our core sites:
Enhancing Wildlife Trust Nature
Reserves, making them more
resilient.
130 131 This is a key project working to achieve
Outcome 2 by applying Lawtonian
principles to the landscape. As a result of
changes in land use and other pressures
many species and habitats have suffered
loss and deterioration. To reverse this we
need to enhance ecological networks
including nature reserves (core areas as
termed by Lawton), making them bigger,
better and more joined up; ultimately
making them more resilient (which will
become increasingly important in the
face of climate change). Grasslands,
wet grassland, wetlands, woodlands,
heathlands and hedges will be restored
on nature reserves enhancing the wider
ecological network.
168 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

Midhope Nature Reserve
Investing in our core sites:
Creating a new Nature Reserve at
Midhope Reservoir by enhancing
and managing the site specifically
for wildlife.
220 220 New Nature Reserve at Midhope: This
project will develop the habitats and
access at Midhope to incorporate it as
part of the leisure resources of the area.
By improving access and including it in a
circular ‘nature route’ we will encourage
people to enjoy the heritage of the area.
However, we will also manage access
and habitats in order to create a true
haven for wildlife, isolating key stands of
forestry / woodland and most of the water
edge from disturbance, facilitating our
more sensitive species, those that cannot
tolerate the ever increasing numbers of
countryside visitors.
Supporting Local Groups
Investing in our core sites:
Supporting Local Groups
65 71 The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership vision and objectives are
around connecting with the landscape
and engaging with those that live within
it. There are a range of activities being
‘led’ by the Partnership and a great deal of
delivery will be via Partnership managed
sites or agreed third party action. There
are a number of groups active in the
area who manage sites for heritage and
community involvement. It is important
that we have involved these groups in our
joined up thinking and can continue to
involve them as they come forward.
The Woodland Heart
The Woodland Heart:
Co-ordinating management of the
woodlands across the landscape –
bringing Yorkshire Water, Sheffield
City Council and other smaller
private owners together - to
improve the woodland habitat
for wildlife and people.
173 460 The area covered by the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership is rich in trees and
dominated by forest and woodland cover.
The Lakelands contains over 600 hectares
of forest and an estimated 100 hectares
of ancient semi-natural woodland. We
will produce and deliver a landscape
scale sustainable Forest and Woodland
Management Plan for Sheffield Lakeland.
During this LCAP 2018-2023 we will work
across the Partnership to directly improve
natural and cultural heritage assets in
the existing estate, create a coordinated
vision and plan for woodlands across the
Sheffield Lakeland area through to 2050.
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
169

Creating the Buffer and Stepping Stones
Creating the buffer and
stepping stones:
87 0 Combined with Working with Water
Identifying/mapping important
small sites, (especially within the
Peak District National Park but
outside of the SSSI), and creating
new sites for wildlife with local
farmers.
Working With Water – slowing the flow and improving water quality
Working with water:
Moors, bogs, flushes, streams,
reservoirs and rivers that flow
through this landscape and are a
network for nature. They support
internationally important and
endangered species such as the
white clawed freshwater crayfish.
Water quality is key to their
survival. This project will work
with farmers to address slurry and
agricultural pollution at key points
in the network.
220 298 Natural flood management, (NFM), water
quality improvement and habitat and
species conservation can go hand in
hand. This project aims to demonstrate
this in the field. We have identified 13
important small sites with local farmers
and landowners for habitat interventions
which will address water quality and flood
risk issues. We will increase connectivity
and secure habitats (including tackling
non-native plant species) throughout the
area. While addressing a broad range of
habitats, there are specific targets around:
• Heathland and grassland mosaics
• Woodland planting
• Enhancing watercourses, and
• Wetland creation.
All habitat plans and interventions will
reference the importance of the area
for water quality and natural flood
management; bogs, flushes, streams,
reservoirs and rivers that flow through
this landscape and provide a network for
nature.
170 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

Supporting Species
Supporting Species: working to
support key species particularly
associated with this landscape,
both in the past and present.
Feasibility work will be critical
before any delivery can take
place, including exploring the
potential to deliver a new white
clawed crayfish habitat, enhancing
existing or creating new habitat
for breeding waders, promoting
owl boxes and monitoring barn
owls, co-ordinating a plan to
address the reasons for the loss of
breeding goshawk in the area and
developing a plan to ensure the
habitat is right for osprey to breed.
51 76 The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership has a range of heritage
and engagement projects across the
landscape. Woven within these projects
are opportunities to influence both our
and other people’s actions in such a
way as to benefit wildlife and particular
species. A small range of species have
been chosen that offer the opportunity to:
• Engage a wide audience and inform
people regarding their influence on the
landscape.
• Reactive species where we have
benchmark data that we can monitor
throughout the period of the LCAP
to help determine successful habitat
management.
• Charismatic indicator species where we
can use scientifically sound modelling
to both influence management
decisions and raise awareness of wider
environmental issues.
The species identified by the SLLP steering
group as offering greatest opportunity
are: bats (as a group of species) barn owls
osprey, goshawk, nightjar, willow tit and
flycatchers and water voles.
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
171

Outcome 3: Better recorded
and valued cultural heritage
celebrated by local people and
visitors.
Original budget
£,000s
New budget
£,000s
Updated summary description
Canyards Hill geological SSSI
What lies beneath:
Surveying and interpreting
Canyards Hill SSSI, and the
connections between the
landscape, geology and habitats.
1 0 Incorporated with Investing in our core
sites: bringing Local Wildlife Sites into
positive management by surveying,
developing and delivering new habitat
management plans.
The Hidden History
Hidden History:
Exploring pre-industrial heritage
through surveying and recording
little known earthworks and
Roman sites. There will be a focus
on woodland archaeology where
sites are due for felling or thinning
– often a rich source of heritage
because the ground has been left
undisturbed by ploughing.
136 146 Exploring Sheffield Lakeland’s heritage
through surveying and recording lesser
known sites. The project will look to
explore our hidden heritage, involving
the community in sites of interest across
the landscape partnership area and
across time from pre-history to the 20th
century. The Community Archaeology
Officer will be engaged and line managed
by Sheffield City Council, (SCC), Parks
and Countryside Service, supported
by the South Yorkshire Archaeology
Service (SYAS). We will engage specialist
archaeological contractors to work with
the project officer on eight projects,
covering eight sites:
• Nature Reserves
• Woodlands
• Lodge Moor POW Camp
• Prehistory of the moors
• Wadsley and Loxley Common
• Early industry of the Loxley Valley
• Early metal working - bloomery sites
around Stocksbridge, and
• Dambuilders - the story of the people
who built the reservoirs.
172 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

Hidden Highways
Heritage Highways:
Surveying and recording the
network of guide stones (some
listed) and packhorse routes.
Telling the story of the traders and
the goods they exchanged. Some
of the condition surveys will be
undertaken by trained volunteers
from the British Horse Society and
Ramblers, supported by Sheffield
Local Access Forum.
35 30 Volunteers will identify and research old
highways that were once used by packhorses,
tradesmen and travellers within the SLLP
area. These routes represent an important
part of the heritage of the area – they were
important to the local economy in the days
of packhorses and carriers and are equally
important today as a leisure resource. Few
people using the old highways are aware of
the history beneath their feet and some of
the old ways are incorrectly recorded on the
definitive map (DM). Project volunteers will
research and tell the story of the old highways,
through waymarking, leafleted routes and
talks. The project will submit applications/
negotiations to have identified routes correctly
recorded on the DM, when sufficient evidence
is found, to preserve their story for future
generations. Some repair/restoration work will
be undertaken as part of the project and to
more easily enable multi-use access.
Cruck Barns
Cruck barns:
Surveying and dating timber from
cruck barns (last survey is decades
old) and potentially finding new
ones (often disguised by buildings
over the top). Feasibility of repairing
Hoyle’s Farmhouse Barn (or another)
to use as a camping barn will be
undertaken.
40 0 The cruck barn described in the original
programme deteriorated so far as to make
the project unfeasible. No other group came
forward willing to lead a cruck barn project.
Restoring the Lattice
Restoring the lattice:
Identifying and re-building gritstone
walls that are of visual significance
in the landscape e.g. main road,
packhorse route, but left to fall due
to land management changes.
171 180 Dry stone construction is best known in the
context of stone walls, traditionally used for
the boundaries of fields and churchyards, or
as retaining walls for terracing, but dry stone
sculptures, buildings, bridges, and other
structures also exist. The dry stone walls of
the Sheffield Lakeland have been identified
as significant features in our Landscape
Character Assessment and our project aims
to raise awareness around walls through
community and volunteering projects and to
repair or rebuild a range of the most important
walls in the landscape. We will undertake a
range of walling protection and restoration
projects taking in some of the most iconic
walls in the area. Seventeen separate sites will
include training and community engagement
opportunities as well as creating a “Walls,
Water and Walks” project telling some of the
story of these heritage features.
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
173

Telling the Stories of the Landscape
Telling Local Stories, especially:
Heritage of the water industry,
impact of World War 1 and 11, Story
of music
2 46 Telling the Stories of the Landscape
will bringing to life 3 signature stories
of Sheffield Lakeland set context of the
changes and challenges being experienced
by 21st century Sheffield. The project will be
led by Professor Brendan Stone of Storying
Sheffield. The outputs will be a combination
of video, oral history, podcast, creative
writing, exhibitions, presentations and
discussions. (Note: Telling the Stories of the
Landscape, The Digital Landscape and Art
in the Landscape will all be delivered by our
Communications and Engagement Officer
and the budgets have moved between
project titles as projects evolved).
Outcome 4: A better
understanding of the local
heritage with more people
helping look after it.
Original budget
£,000s
New budget
£,000s
Updated summary description
A Landscape for Everyone to Enjoy - physical access
A landscape for everyone to enjoy:
Improving accessibility at key
points on the rights of way
network, changing stiles to gates,
linking to bus routes etc. Leaflets
and interpretation to help people
explore the heritage - with input
from Bradfield Walkers are
Welcome.
121 253 A number of physical barriers to access
were identified during consultation
exercises and site condition surveys. We
will remove or improve these, increasing
access to a range of landscape heritage
features. SLLP partners, landowners and
statutory organisations have been involved
in project development to ensure a
joined up approach to access to heritage,
identifying priorities accordingly.
This is a combined budget for the
following accessibility improvements:
• Access to Heritage - improvements to
our PRoW network at key locations;
Redmires, Loxley Valley and between
the reservoirs of Langsett and Midhope.
• The Final Step - the creation of a ‘multiability’
easy walk completing the circuit
around Langsett Reservoir.
• Cut Gate – North America Farm link path
- restoration of a traditional pack horse
route across the moors to Cutgate path.
• Access to Nature - improvements to
nature reserve access and facilities to
help more people discover these special
places.
174 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

Gateways to the Landscape (Reducing Barriers and Increasing Knowledge and Understanding)
Gateways to the landscape:
Starting points to explore the
wider landscape, these areas
require joined up management
plans as they involve a number of
landowners and have potentially
conflicting uses. Improved
accessibility, signage and
interpretation will improve visitors’
experience whilst protecting
important heritage features. With
reference to Sheffield’s Outdoor
Economy Strategy, the gateways
proposed are: Redmires/Rivelin,
Little Don Reservoir complex,
Broomhead and Ewden Valley, and
to a lesser extent, Fox Glen.
87 51 Gateways to improving landscape accessibility can
be informational and physical jumping off points.
In order to develop a range of interventions, the
potential gateways have been divided into five
categories:
A Highly used recreational hubs e.g. Redmires
B Locally important gateway sites e.g. Wadsley
and Loxley Common
C Public transport gateways e.g. Malin Bridge
D Gateways to information – such as libraries,
cafes and pubs or online such as the Walkers
are Welcome websites.
E Gateways to confidence – e.g. groups which
specialise in short, accessible walks for new
walkers e.g. Walking for Health Stannington.
This project will:
1. Increase knowledge of existing access
opportunities in Sheffield Lakeland.
2. Work with land managers, interest groups and
other stakeholders to agree a common set of
values and management approaches.
3. Widen audience participation by providing
targeted outreach workshops.
4. Design new interpretation of the stories of the
landscape.
Practical Projects, Volunteer Coordinator and Traineeships
Countryside volunteers:
Recruiting, co-ordinating and
training volunteers (occasional
and regular) to undertake a
range of volunteer tasks e.g.
surveying, recording and / orland
management. Volunteers will
include young people from
the city supported by Sheffield
United Football Club Community
Foundation.
218 137 Throughout the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership volunteers will be undertaking a
wide range of projects; developing, planning,
implementing and reporting. Volunteers of all
types will need to be recruited and those already
working in the area will need support in both
expertise and logistics. This is a capacity building
project, the Practical Projects and Volunteer
Officer will play a vital role in:
• Helping all projects requiring and involving
volunteers
• Overall coordination of the Supporting Local
Groups project
• Working with woodland partners to develop
woodlands and woodland volunteering
• Delivering the Restoring the Lattice Project, and
• Coordinating and supporting the SLLP Assistant
Ranger (career-starter) posts.
(Note a dedicated Practical and Volunteer Officer
salary is included within the core project circa
£123,000).
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
175

Landscape Connections
Learning in the Landscape:
Engaging children and young
people who live within the
landscape (e.g. Bradfield-
Dungworth Primary School) and
who live in the city (e.g. Manor
Primary School, based in one of the
most deprived communities). The
learning offer will include Forest
schools (linking to The Woodland
Heart), ‘landscape detectives’, farm
visits, (farmers are willing to host
visits with appropriate support), and
much more and will be based at the
underused Langsett Barn managed
by the PDNPA. Fun family heritage
events would also be offered.
81 91 Landscape Connections: We will offer a
programme of outdoor learning activities
for partner schools from both rural and
urban communities – using the landscape
as a natural outdoor classroom to deliver a
combination of natural heritage and farm
visit learning activities based around Cliffe
House Farm in Dungworth. Because the
Sheffield Lakeland landscape is so close to
the city, there is great potential to engage,
excite and inspire children and young
people to connect with the local heritage
around them. We will enable urban children
to experience a landscape which, although
on their doorstep, is often left unexplored.
We will empower local children to learn
more about the landscape they live in but
may not fully understand.
Connecting Steps
Stepping Out:
Engaging communities not using
this landscape, including isolated
or vulnerable adults often with
limited mobility and confidence.
Participants will take steps into their
local green space, building up to a
supported visit into the landscape.
A similar targeted programme
will be offered to new arrivals and
asylum seekers and more deprived
communities where cost may be
an issue. Partners would include
the local bus company, 'Finding
our Feet' and Sheffield United
Community Foundation.
106 106 Connecting Steps: The objective is to
encourage more people to visit, enjoy and
use the Sheffield Lakeland green spaces,
woodlands, reservoirs and interesting
landscapes & history. We want to reach
people who are not currently accessing
the countryside by supporting the work
of existing community groups - including
local community groups, refugee groups,
those working with new arrivals and other
vulnerable or isolated people particularly
focussing on building the capacity of
group leaders to lead visits to the Sheffield
Lakeland landscape. Our project will
extend the reach of these groups into the
countryside, encouraging and equipping
them to include countryside-based
activities in the programmes they offer to
their members. We believe we will create
a more lasting legacy of connectedness to
the natural world by extending the work of
community groups in this way.
176 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

Art in the Landscape
Art in the Landscape:
Engaging a wide audience, through
different art forms associated
with the landscape but especially
music. For example, offering carol
performances in the open air
(e.g. Carols in the Glen at Fox Glen
bandstand, Stocksbridge), silver and
brass band outdoor performances
and exploring the landscape
through music e.g. local songs,
wind up music posts (potentially
linking to an Arts Council project
with ‘Soundpost’ a local community
music group).
55 46 The Art in the Landscape strand will
celebrate the creativity and rich heritage
of Sheffield Lakeland and will harness the
power of the creative arts to work with
communities in strengthening their sense
of connection with the landscape. For
example by:
• Eliciting a deeper, more emotional
response than a simple visit
• Providing a frame to look at the
landscape in a new light or through
“different eyes”
• Introducing new audiences to the
different aspects of the physical
landscape or identifying changes in the
landscape over time
• Widening engagement with the
landscape to new audiences, and
• Helping participants express complex
feelings, provoke thought / reaction to
address controversial topics.
(Note: a proportion of this budget has been
incorporated into Telling the Stories of the
Landscape).
The Digital Landscape
The Digital Landscape:
Using technology to engage
volunteers in surveying and
recording of heritage features, both
ecological and archaeological.
Data would be uploaded to the
relevant heritage databases.
Sheffield Lakeland web and social
media presence will broaden access
to heritage data and interpretation.
For example, uploading oral
histories, linking to webcams (see
‘Back from the Brink’).
75 21 The Digital Landscape strand will make
use of digital media and the opportunities
offered by smart phones / podcasts /
Youtube to reach wider audiences. Digital
Landscape projects will run as a golden
thread through other programme strands.
The following elements of the Digital
Landscape project are being delivered
wholly or in part by means of other project
strands and so are described elsewhere:
• Sheffield Lakeland website, delivered by
the Core Project
• Telling the Stories of the Landscape,
Flood! and A Disappearing Landscape.
This leaves a remaining budget of £1000
to support a series of interpretative
geocaches to be located around the
Sheffield Lakeland landscape. (Note the
original project description included a part
time Communications and Engagement
Officer who is now counted under the Core
project).
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
177

The Sheffield Lakeland Community Grant Scheme
Community grants: offering support
to small community groups to bring
in expertise to survey, record, restore
and/or informally ‘adopt’ a heritage
feature in the landscape. This
could range from a guide post to a
habitat, a barn owl box to a nature
reserve.
60 110 A competitive grant programme running
throughout the SLLP delivery phase.
Available for a wide range of activities, all of
which must meet a heritage criteria of HLF.
To encourage and support wide community
involvement in the SLLP programme,
particularly during the delivery phase where
most of the budget is allocated and the
local community has limited opportunity
to continue to influence the direction of
projects and expenditure.
One of the changes during the development of the LCAP
was to extend the programme boundary to include
Watersmeet at Malin Bridge, the confluence of the rivers
Loxley and Rivelin, close to the heart of the city and
public transport interchanges. Photo Ignite Imaginations
178
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts
While developing this LCAP participants
have been able to work together to
add value to each other’s projects and
to ensure they do not duplicate effort.
An ideal example of this comes from
our engagement project Connecting
Steps, as part of which the Sheffield and
Rotherham Wildlife Trust will engage with
communities who have limited access to
our heritage and landscape. As well as
bespoke opportunities, the Connecting
Steps team will introduce their participants
to other Sheffield Lakeland projects and
even involve them in delivering some
of the activities required to deliver their
outcomes. This synergy runs through all
of our projects and each ‘detailed project
description’ outlines what connections
there are and how they will be delivered.
A landscape partnership running ahead
of ours has produced a piece of software
to help visualise these connections, we
have used this tool to help demonstrate
opportunities within the partnership and
the following image is a screen shot of the
‘overarching’ connections between our
projects.
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
179

Summary of project titles and lead organisation
Outcome 1: A more connected and resilient landscape Steering Group Lead Key Partners
The Core Project
SLLP the core
project
Steering Group
incorporating Monitoring and Evaluation and Legacy
SLLP the core
project
Steering Group
Outcome 2: Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife
Bringing Local Wildlife Sites into, and sustaining them in
positive conservation management and Canyards Hills
Steering Group Lead
Richard Harris SCC
Key Partners
SCC Ecology Unit
Enhancing Wildlife Trust Nature Reserves – habitat
improvements.
Roy Mosley / Rob
Miller SRWT
SRWT / Wildscapes
Midhope Nature Reserve Geoff Lomas YW Wildscapes
Supporting Local Groups SLLP Core SLLP Vol Project,
Wildscapes
Wadsley and Loxley Common
Bowcroft Cemetery
Rivelin Valley
St Nicholas Church
W&LC, SCC
SVP, BPC
RVCG, SCC
SVP
Bats SYBG
Woodland Heart Dave Aspinall SCC YW, SRWT, SVP,
Wildscapes
Working With Water: slowing the flow and improving
water quality
Nabil Abbas / Roy
Mosley SRWT
Wildscapes
Supporting Species Jon Goodrick SRWT Wildscapes, SVP,
SCC Ecology, SHU
180 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

Outcome 3: Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and visitors
What Lies Beneath
Steering Group Lead
Richard Harris SCC
Key Partners
The Hidden History Dave SCC SYAS
Heritage Highways Rhiannon Owen /
Georgina Hartley
BHS
SV, Wildscapes
Restoring the Lattice Keith Tomkins SLLP SRWT, SCC, YW, SVP
Telling the Stories of the Landscape Claire Watts SLLP SVP, Soundpost,
Stoneface Creative
Outcome 4: A better understanding of the local heritage
with more people helping look after it
A Landscape for Everyone to Enjoy - physical access
Steering Group Lead
Key Partners
Access to heritage SVP SCC
Langsett path YW
North America path M4TF PDNPA
SRWT nature reserves
SRWT
Gateways to the Landscape - Reducing Barriers and
Increasing Knowledge and Understanding
SLLP
SRWT, YW, SVP,
Walkers are
Welcome
Practical Projects, Volunteer Coordinator and Traineeships
Keith Tomkins SLLP/
SRWT
SVP, SCC, YW
Landscape Connections SRWT Our Cow Molly
Connecting Steps
SRWT
Art in the Landscape: engaging a wide audience
through different art forms associated with the
landscape
Claire Watts SLLP/
SRWT
SLLP
Fox Glen Bandstand SVP SCC
ReSound Soundpost
The Digital Landscape:
Claire Watts SLLP
Sheffield Lakeland Community Grant Scheme BCP / STC SLLP
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
181

Guide to name acronyms
BHS
M4TF
RVCG
SHU
SRWT
SVP
W&LC
BPC
PDNPA
SCC
SLLP
STC
SYBG
YW
British Horse Society
Moors for the Future
Rivelin Valley Conservation Group
Sheffield Hallam University
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Steel Valley Project
Wadsley and Loxley Commoners
Bradfield Parish Council
Peak District National Park Authority
Sheffield City Council
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Stocksbridge Town Council
South Yorkshire Bat Group
Yorkshire Water
182 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

Project Summaries
The Core Project
The Core Project is predominantly a
management and administrative process.
Claire Watts (left)
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership is a multi-partner programme
delivering a broad Landscape Conservation
Action Plan with the Heritage Lottery Fund,
Landscape Partnership scheme as the main
funding source. Such programmes are
complex and require close supervision, the
Core LP delivery team will be 100% funded
by HLF and will:
• Administer the interactions between
partners and the HLF
• Run a number of small ‘linking’ projects,
• Deliver projects where there is no lead
(Restoring the Lattice),
• Line manage dedicated project staff;
Practical and Volunteer Co-ordinator and
Communications and Engagement Officer
Jo Walker
• Retain contingency budget.
The Core project
HLF Funds required
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
Percentage
£688,200 100%
£0 0%
Keith Tomkins
Volunteer contribution £0 0%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £688,200 100%
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
183

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Bringing Local Wildlife Sites into, and sustaining them in
positive conservation management and Canyards Hills
Bringing Local Wildlife Sites into, and sustaining
them in positive conservation management and
Canyards Hills
Percentage
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
£48,000 85%
£8,000 15%
Volunteer contribution £0 0%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Photo Richard Harris
Total £56,000 100%
Investing in our core sites: bringing Local
Wildlife Sites, (LWSs), into, and sustaining
them in positive conservation management
through the identification, conservation
and maintenance of species and habitat
features of substantive conservation value
and the enhancement thereof. This project
will bring 4 sites into positive conservation
management, including creation of 1 new
Local Wildlife Site, and ensure that 7 sites
retain their existing positive conservation
management status; without this project
the latter would drop out of positive
conservation management. This will be
achieved by surveying, developing new
habitat management briefs and delivering
conservation management. Canyard’s Hills
is an impressive ‘tumble down’ landscape,
we will undertake research and create
new physical and online information and
interpretation resources so that people can
find out more about it.
184 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
185

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Enhancing Wildlife Trust Nature Reserves – habitat
improvements
Fox Hagg and Wyming Brook, Rivelin Valley:
Photo credit: Rob Miller
This is a key project working to achieve
Outcome 2 by applying Lawtonian
principles to the landscape. As a result of
changes in land use and other pressures
many species and habitats have suffered
loss and deterioration. To reverse this we
need to enhance ecological networks
including nature reserves (core areas as
termed by Lawton), making them bigger,
better and more joined up; ultimately
making them more resilient (which will
become increasingly important in the
face of climate change). Grasslands, wet
grassland, wetlands, woodlands, heathlands
and hedges will be restored on nature
reserves enhancing the wider ecological
network.
Enhancing Wildlife Trust Nature Reserves – habitat
improvements
Percentage
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring £115,666 77%
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
£15,000 10%
Volunteer contribution £20,000 13%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £150,666 100%
186 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
187

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Midhope Nature Reserve
Midhope Reservoir. Photo Yorkshire Water
One of the three reservoirs in the Langsett
complex and of fourteen Yorkshire Water
reservoirs present in the Sheffield Lakeland
area. As Sheffield Lakeland continues
to grow in popularity and the reservoirs
remain the ‘starting point’ for so much
activity, Midhope Reservoir remains quietest
of the ‘Langsett Complex’, in the north.
Yorkshire Water has identified Midhope
as the destination for ‘quiet enjoyment of
nature’ within the three reservoir complex,
Midhope, Langsett and Underbank. The
intention is to create a home for osprey
and goshawk with low key access and
interpretation and undertake a significant
habitat creation project as a flagship nature
conservation element of the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
This project will develop the habitats and
access at Midhope to incorporate it as
part of the leisure resources of the area.
By improving access and including it in a
circular ‘nature route’ we will encourage
people to enjoy the heritage of the area.
However, we will also manage access and
habitats in order to create a true haven for
wildlife, isolating key stands of forestry /
woodland and most of the water edge from
disturbance, facilitating our more sensitive
species, those that cannot tolerate the ever
increasing numbers of countryside visitors.
Midhope Nature Reserve
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
Percentage
£70,000 32%
£150,000 68%
Volunteer contribution £0 0%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £220,000 100%
188 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
189

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Supporting Local Groups
Managing heathland without grazing or burning
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership vision and objectives are
around connecting with the landscape
and engaging with those that live within it.
There are a range of activities being ‘led’ by
the partnership and a great deal of delivery
will be via partnership managed sites or
agreed third party action.
There are a number of groups active in the
area who manage sites for natural heritage
and community involvement. It is important
that we have involved these groups in our
joined up thinking and can continue to
involve them as they come forward.
Supporting Local Groups combined budget
Percentage
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring £71,256 65%
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
£0 0%
Volunteer contribution £37,900 35%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £109,156 100%
190 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Supporting Local Groups
Wadsley and Loxley Commoners
Sometimes a little help can
get you a long way, SRWT
volunteers creating new access
routes at Wyming Brook
Wadsley and Loxley Common lies just on the
edge of Wadsley and is a local gateway to the
Lakelands. The important heathland habitats
are maintained by volunteers and the area is
enjoyed by hundreds of local people.
This project includes a range of community
engagement events, such as bioblitz,
capacity building for existing and new
groups, particularly around ecological
training and direct support for important
habitat management. SLLP Practical and
Volunteer Coordinator and Communication
and Engagement Officer supporting a local
group, W&L Commoners as recipients rather
than project designers.
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
191

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Supporting Local Groups
Finding out about St Nicholas
St Nicholas Church, Bradfield.
Photo: Russel Hague
St Nicholas sits in the heart of the Landscape
Partnership and with the cooperation of
the church and local community we have
an opportunity to encapsulate everything
we are doing across the partnership in one
place.
Each year of the Landscape Partnership the
core team and an assistant ranger will carry
out a different project, while also carrying
forward the project from the year before.
Each year people from the community will
be asked to get involved.
• The Digital Landscape
• Enhancing our natural heritage
• Community Archaeology
• Telling the Stories of Landscape
• Landscape Connections
• Supporting Local Groups
• Restoring the Lattice
192 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Supporting Local Groups:
The South Yorkshire Bat Group
Bat in hand © SYBG
A comprehensive ‘bat species’ project
delivered across the Sheffield Lakeland area
with partners.
• Undertake a ‘hibernation site’ search
of the Sheffield Lakeland area. This
will include a desktop study to identify
potential hibernation sites within the area,
(i.e. underground sites, historic structures),
utilising GIS and the minimum of 1
hibernation site visits per year.
• Undertake transect and static surveys of
key sites within the Landscape Partnership
area as and when identified.
• Undertake harp trapping surveys of
woodlands. This will feed into the
national small Myotis project and inform
landscape-scale management of several
sites within the area.
• Undertake at least 3 bat walks per year
within the Sheffield Lakeland area to both
educate the general public about bats
and to gain new members for the group.
• Provide advice to the site owners and
managers on ways to encourage bats
throughout the area as and when
required.
• Work with site owners and managers to
install and monitor roost boxes.
• Undertake harp trapping survey at any
potential swarming site identified within
the hibernation checks.
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
193

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Supporting Local Groups
Bowcroft Cemetery
Entrance stone to Bowcroft cemetery © T Bradshaw
Bowcroft Cemetery is an ancient Quaker
burial ground, where members of the Shaw
family were laid to rest back in the 1700s.
The cemetery is located on Riggs High
Road, situated on a high ridgeline above
Stannington in a rural, isolated location, with
panoramic views across Sheffield and the
Peak District. The site is now cared for by
Bradfield Parish Council and there are some
basic site facilities available, such as benches
and a stone inscribed with basic information
on the site. There is a small lay-by on the
road which provides limited parking for
those wishing to visit.
The project aims to conserve, restore and
interpret the features of interest on site,
alongside improving the habitats for wildlife
and some small-scale access improvements,
to help people to walk around the site.
194 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Supporting Local Groups:
Rivelin Valley Project
Rivelin Corn Mill will make a great location for a wildlife pond
The Rivelin Valley to the west of Sheffield,
made a significant contribution to the early
industrial revolution over the last 500 years
with its water powered mills. It has since
become a popular visitor attraction with
3 miles of nature trail passing the remains
of those mills, a park, café and paddling
pools all providing idyllic outdoor exercise
for the community. The Rivelin Valley
Conservation Group for over 25 years has
played an important role in helping keep
much of the Valley accessible to the public,
helping preserve some of the millponds for
wildlife and providing interpretation for its
heritage. Unfortunately lack of investment
is quite noticeable around popular areas
of the nature trail with footpaths that are
extremely muddy and uneven and almost
impassable for wheel chairs and push chairs.
The RVCG would like to help upgrade these
paths, create a wildlife pond and extend the
heritage interpretation.
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
195

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
196 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
The Woodland Heart
Woodlands, forestry and reservoirs are key parts of the Sheffield Lakeland landscape. Photo Dave Aspinall
The area covered by the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership is rich in trees and
dominated by forest and woodland cover.
The Sheffield Lakeland contains over 600
hectares of forest and an estimated 100
hectares of ancient semi-natural woodland.
We will produce and deliver a landscape
scale sustainable Forest and Woodland
Management Plan for Sheffield Lakeland.
During this LCAP 2018-2023, we will work
across the Partnership to directly improve
natural and cultural heritage assets in
the existing estate, create a coordinated
vision and plan for woodlands across the
Lakelands through to 2050.
Coordinated forestry operations toward a
joined up approach 2018-2023.
A range of forestry and associated woodland
projects to move our forestry estate away
from purely commercial forestry toward
sustainable woodlands with heritage, leisure
and ecosystem services gains.
Woodland Gateway 1 - Langsett and
Stocksbridge
Woodland Gateway 2 - Ewden Valley
Woodland Gateway 3 – Agden and Dale Dike
Woodland Gateway 4 - Redmires, Wyming
Brook and Rivelin
The Woodland Heart
Including Steel Valley Project elements
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
Percentage
£303,501 64%
£156,860 33%
Volunteer contribution £8,000 3%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £468,361 100%
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
197

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
The Woodland Heart
Steel Valley Project (SVP) elements only
Broadleaf woodland canopy
Sheffield City Council, (SCC), broadleaf
woodlands in the Upper Don Valley
provide a space for recreation, enabling
the community to gain associated health
benefits, as well as proving a place for
wildlife to thrive in a mosaic of steep
wooded river valleys or cloughs.
This project aims to improve selected SCC
woodlands for wildlife, enable easier and
wider public access, as well as interpreting
the heritage of these varied woodland sites.
The project will involve work which will
mainly be carried out by volunteers under
the guidance, support and training of SVP
staff. Community involvement will be key
to safeguarding these sites for the future
and this project will aim to provide a lasting
legacy of infrastructure, wildlife habitats and
interpretation, which will help people to
engage with these woodlands.
198 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
199

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Working With Water
Slowing the flow and improving water quality
Sketch showing opportunity to create wet woodland and protect riparian strip from livestock at Sick Brook,
holding more water in the landscape and reducing soil erosion and localised pollution © Nabil Abas
Natural flood management (NFM), water
quality improvement and habitat and species
conservation can go hand in hand. This
project aims to demonstrate this in the field.
We have identified 13 important small sites
with local farmers and landowners for
habitat interventions which will address
water quality and flood risk issues. We will
increase connectivity and secure habitats,
(including tackling non-native plant species),
throughout the area. While addressing a
broad range of habitats, there are specific
targets around:
• Heathland and grassland mosaics
• Woodland planting
• Enhancing watercourses and wetland
creation.
All habitat plans and interventions will
reference the importance of the area
for water quality and natural flood
management; bogs, flushes, streams,
reservoirs and rivers that flow through this
landscape providing a network for nature.
In addition we have identified a location to
establish a catchment ‘laboratory’ which will
allow us to carry out designed and measurable
procedures to gain quantitative information to
support the importance of NFM.
Working With Water – slowing the flow and
improving water quality
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
Percentage
£243,872 76%
£50,000 15%
Volunteer contribution £25,000 9%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £318,872 100%
200 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
201

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Supporting Species
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
has a range of heritage and engagement
projects across the landscape. Woven within
these projects are opportunities to influence
both our and other people’s actions in such
a way as to benefit wildlife and particular
species. A small range of species have been
chosen that offer:
• The opportunity to engage a wide
audience and inform people regarding
their influence on the landscape.
• Reactive species where we have
benchmark data that we can monitor
throughout the period of the LCAP to help
determine successful habitat management.
• Charismatic indicator species where we can
use scientifically sound modelling to both
influence management decisions and raise
awareness of wider environmental issues.
The species identified by the SLLP steering
group as offering greatest opportunity are:
1. Bats (as a group of species)
2. Barn Owls
3. Osprey
A water vole entering the conduit at Redmires.
Photo Guy Badham
4. Goshawk
5. Nightjar
6. Willow tit and flycatchers
7. Water voles
Supporting Species Combined budgets all species
Percentage
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full cost recovery for SRWT together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget, review of ecosystem services and web hosting.
£76,000 81%
Partnership / match funding £ secured £0 0%
Volunteer contribution £18,100 19%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £94,100 100%
202 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
203

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
The Hidden History
Archaeology in the landscape is not always obvious,
but it has shaped the landscape and the community.
Exploring Sheffield Lakeland’s heritage
through surveying and recording lesser
known sites. The project will look to
explore our hidden heritage, involving the
community in sites of interest across the
landscape partnership area and across time
from pre-history to the 20th century. The
Community Archaeology Officer will be
engaged and line managed by Sheffield
City Council, (SCC), Parks and Countryside
Service, supported by the South Yorkshire
Archaeology Service (SYAS). We will engage
specialist archaeological contractors to
work with the project officer on eight
projects, covering eight sites:
• Nature Reserves
• Early industry of the Loxley Valley
(Storrs Wood)
• Early metal working - bloomery sites
around Stocksbridge, and
• Dambuilders - the story of the people
who built the reservoirs.
The Hidden History
Percentage
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
£85,938 52%
• Woodlands
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
£60,000 36%
• Lodge Moor POW Camp
• Prehistory of the moors
• Wadsley and Loxley Common
Volunteer contribution £20,000 12%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £165,938 100%
204 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
205

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Heritage Highways
Project volunteers will research and tell
the story of the old highways, in various
ways, and make applications/negotiations
to have them correctly recorded on the
DM, when sufficient evidence is found, to
preserve them for future generations.
Some repair/restoration work will be
undertaken as part of the project and to
more easily enable multi-use access.
The work needs to be done now as
Section 53 of the Countryside & Rights of
Way Act 2000 contains provision for the
extinguishment of pre-1949 rights that are
not recorded on the DM by 1st January
2026. If not recorded, these public rights
will be lost forever to a multiplicity of
diverse user groups.
Heritage Highways
HLF Funds required:
Percentage
The Worrall path – pilot project. A hollow way, showing
a compacted stone surface. The features shown here are
typical of an old highway and are the type of thing that
volunteers will be looking for when they survey routes.
Photo credit: Melanie Fitzgerald
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
£30,428 53%
Volunteers will identify and research
old highways that were once used by
packhorses, tradesmen and travellers
within the SLLP area. These routes
represent an important part of the
heritage of the area – they were important
to the local economy in the days of
packhorses and carriers and are equally
important today as a leisure resource.
Few of those using the old highways are
aware of the history beneath their feet
and some of the old ways are incorrectly
recorded on the definitive map (DM).
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
£0 0%
Volunteer contribution £21,600 38%
In-kind contribution £5,250 9%
Total £57,278 100%
206 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
207

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Restoring the Lattice
Example from a previous HLF Landscape Partnership. A team building exercise with the ARCO Sales Team
Dry stone walls, important visual and
historic features in our landscape, but
also opportunities to engage people in
teamwork, getting out into the countryside,
learning (or appreciating) a new skill or just
knowing you’ve made a difference.
Dry stone construction is best known in the
context of stone walls, traditionally used for
the boundaries of fields and churchyards, or
as retaining walls for terracing, but dry stone
sculptures, buildings, bridges, and other
structures also exist.
The dry stone walls of the Sheffield Lakeland
have been identified as significant features
by our Landscape Character Assessment,
including field walls, retaining walls and
the distinctive water company walls. Our
project aims to raise awareness of the
importance of walls as landscape features
and wildlife habitat through community
and volunteering projects and to repair or
rebuild a range of the most important walls
in the landscape.
We will undertake a range of walling
protection and restoration projects taking
in some of the most iconic walls in the area.
Seventeen separate sites will include training
and community engagement opportunities
as well as creating a ‘Walls, Water and Walks’
project telling some of the story of these
heritage features.
Restoring the lattice including Steel Valley Project
and wall art elements
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
Percentage
£177,791 96%
£2,275 1%
Volunteer contribution £7,400 3%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £187,416 100%
208 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Restoring the Lattice
Steel Valley Project
Two sites will benefit from the project
and will include training and community
engagement opportunities.
Dry stone wall above Stocksbridge
These projects are: Christ Church
Community Café Church sculpture
working with the Steel Valley Project and
Loxley Valley Flood Art Wall, working with
Stoneface Creative. There will be further
community engagement through the
design and delivery of the Walls, Water
and Walks guided route.
Photo: N. Abbas
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
209

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
210 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Telling the Stories of the Landscape
Remembering the Great Sheffield Flood of 1864
B Dambuilders
The Building of Sheffield Lakeland – the
story of the building of the reservoirs,
outputs will include family history
research, exploration of the location of
‘tin towns’, curation of archive images
and will culminate in a touring exhibition.
C Flood!
A documentary style film which will
provide a retrospective on the 1864 and
2007 flood events, using historic pictures,
reporting, video footage and vox pops of
memories of 25th June 2007, interwoven
with information about the latest
research in natural flood management .
SLLP Communications and Engagement
Officer working with Storying Sheffield and
Sheffield University Deptment of English
Literature and the Community Archaeology
Officer will lead these projects.
Telling the Stories of the Landscape will
bringing to life 3 signature stories of
Sheffield Lakeland set in the context of the
changes and challenges being experienced
by 21st century Sheffield.
The project will be led by Professor Brendan
Stone of Storying Sheffield. The outputs
will be a combination of video, oral history,
podcast, creative writing, exhibitions,
presentations and discussions.
Telling the Stories of the Landscape
Percentage
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring £46,016 95%
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
£0 0%
Volunteer contribution £2,500 5%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £48,516 100%
A A Disappearing Landscape
An intergenerational oral history project
with farmers and other land based
workers, identifying changes in their
lifetimes – to be produced as a podcast
which can support wider interpretation
as well as an oral history archive.
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
211

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
A Landscape for Everyone to Enjoy - Physical
access improvements
Volunteers improving accessibility, replacing a stile with a kissing gate
A number of physical barriers to access
were identified during consultation
exercises and site condition surveys. We will
remove or improve these, increasing access
to a range of landscape heritage features.
SLLP partners, landowners and statutory
organisations have been involved in
project development to ensure a joined up
approach to access to heritage, identifying
priorities accordingly.
C Cut Gate – North America Farm link path
- restoration of a traditional pack horse
route across the moors.
D Access to Nature - improvements to
nature reserve access and facilities to help
more people discover these special places.
A landscape for everyone to enjoy, combined budget
all physical access improvements
This is a combined budget for the following
accessibility improvements:
A Access to Heritage - improvements
to our PRoW network at key locations;
Redmires, Loxley Valley and between the
reservoirs of Langsett and Midhope.
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Percentage
£129,980 50%
B The Final Step - the creation of a ‘multiability’
easy walk completing the circuit
around Langsett Reservoir.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
£123,041 47%
Volunteer contribution £8,300 3%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £261,321 100%
212 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
A Access to Heritage - improvements to
our PRoW network at key locations;
Redmires, Loxley Valley and between
the reservoirs of Langsett and Midhope
B The Final Step - the creation of a ‘multiability’
easy walk completing the circuit
around Langsett Reservoir
Access infrastructure at Redmires Reservoir
The project will improve access to key
gateways and routes in the SLLP area at
Redmires, Loxley Valley and Langsett, to
help a wide range of people experience the
unique heritage of this area.
The public rights of way that will be
improved as part of this project have
been identified through the Access &
Gateways consultancy project, which
included significant public consultation.
SLLP partners, landowners and statutory
organisations have been involved in the
project development to ensure a joined up
approach to access to heritage, identifying
priorities accordingly.
Barriers to access have been identified
during site condition surveys and work will
be carried out to remove or improve these,
increasing access to a range of landscape
heritage features.
Steel Valley Project will carry out the
work with their team of volunteers, giving
members of the local community the
opportunity to be involved in practical
access improvement work.
Countryside stroll, walking Langsett Gateway the
northern side
Langsett has been identified as a significant
‘Gateway’ to the Sheffield Lakelands and the
Peak District National Park. Many people
visit for countryside enjoyment and there
is mounting pressure on the countryside
arising as a result. With a good car park,
information, toilet facilities and nearby pub
and café this reservoir in particular attracts a
wide range of visitors.
The existing initial ‘northern’ walking route
offers easy and safe walking around the
reservoir, whereas the existing southern
section involves climbing up onto Cutgate
and traversing the moors – providing
spectacular views, but limiting access to the
full circular route around the reservoir to the
physically able. This project will complete
an easy walking low level circuit of Langsett
Reservoir so as many people as possible can
visit and enjoy our landscape heritage.
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
213

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
C Cut Gate – North America Farm link
path - restoration of a traditional pack
horse route across the moors
D Access to Nature - improvements to
nature reserve access and facilities
to help more people discover these
special places
The North America Farm – Cut Gate Path is extremely wet
and has widened into the surrounding moorland Photo
K. Tomkins
Of the four iconic cross moorland paths
in the SLLP area: The Long Causeway,
The Duke’s Road, Cut Gate and the North
America – Cut Gate path, it is the latter that
is yet to receive any attention. This project
will improve the 1.5km of upland bridleway
between Cut Gate and Langsett via the
abandoned farm at North America.
Credit: Sarah Sidgwick: Wyming Brook.
This is a key project working to achieve the
following objectives:
2. Bigger, better and more joined up
natural environment for people and
wildlife.
4. A better understanding of the local
heritage with more people getting
involved to help look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy.
The project will improve physical access
to SRWT nature reserves allowing visitors a
more accessible & enjoyable visit to the SLLP
project area whilst retaining the natural
beauty of the local area. It will improve
paths and byways enabling people to enjoy,
experience and learn about natural heritage
which in turn should help improve people’s
health and wellbeing in a variety of ways.
214 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
215

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Gateways to the Landscape (Reducing Barriers and
Increasing Knowledge and Understanding)
This project will:
1. Increase knowledge of existing access
opportunities in Sheffield Lakeland by
joining up the availability of pre-visit
information, improving on site orientation
and using signage to improve visitor
experience whilst protecting important
and sensitive heritage locations.
A collection of confusing informational signs at the
gateway to Langsett Reservoir, C. Watts
Gateways to improving landscape accessibility
can be informational or physical jumping
off points. In order to develop a range of
interventions, the potential gateways have
been divided into 5 categories:
A Highly used recreational hubs e.g.
Redmires
B Locally important gateway sites e.g.
Wadsley and Loxley Common
2. Work with land managers, interest
groups and other stakeholders to agree a
common set of values and management
approaches to protect the heritage of the
most popular recreational hubs.
3. Widen audience participation by
supporting the development of the
existing network of access groups and
directly providing targeted outreach
workshops.
4. Design new interpretation of the
stories of the landscape to increase
understanding and deepen engagement
with the heritage of the area.
C Public transport gateways e.g. Malin
Bridge
D Gateways to information – such as
libraries, cafes and pubs or online such as
the Walkers are Welcome websites.
E Gateways to confidence – e.g. groups
which specialise in short, accessible walks
for new walkers e.g. Walking for Health
Stannington.
Gateways to the Landscape
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
Percentage
£51,000 89%
£0 0%
Volunteer contribution £6,000 11%
In-kind contribution £5,250 9%
Total £57,000 100%
216 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
217

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Practical Projects, Volunteer Coordinator and Assistant Rangers
This is a capacity building project, the
Practical Projects and Volunteer Officer will
play a vital role in:
• Helping all projects requiring and
involving volunteers
• Overall coordination of the ‘Supporting
Local Groups’ project
• Working with woodland partners to
develop woodlands and woodland
volunteering
• Delivering the Restoring the Lattice
Project, and
A dedicated volunteer team from a previous HLF
Landscape Partnership
Volunteers are at the heart of what we
do, but they are not resource free they
do require support and resources to be
effective. They also offer a great opportunity
for Assistant Rangers (trainees) to develop
skills and learn to be part of and then
lead teams. Throughout the work of the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership,
volunteers will be undertaking a wide
range of projects; developing, planning,
implementing and reporting. Volunteers
of all types will need to be recruited and
those already working in the area will need
support in both expertise and logistics.
• Coordinating and supporting the SLLP
Assistant Ranger (career starter) posts.
Practical Projects, Volunteer Coordinator and
Assistant Ranger career-starter posts
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
Percentage
£137,628 93%
£0 0%
Volunteer contribution £10,500 7%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £148,128 100%
218 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Landscape Connections
Children from a Sheffield primary school using woodland as a natural outdoor classroom. Photo: Dave Shapiro
We will offer a programme of outdoor
learning activities for partner schools from
Sheffield’s rural and urban communities –
using the landscape as a natural outdoor
classroom to deliver a combination of
natural heritage and farm visit learning
activities.
Because the Sheffield Lakeland landscape
is so close to the city, there is great potential
to engage, excite and inspire children and
young people to connect with the local
heritage around them.
We will enable urban children to experience
a landscape which, although on their
doorstep, is often left unexplored. We will
empower local children to learn more about
the landscape where they live, but may
not fully understand and to develop their
personal resilience in new environments.
Landscape Connections
Percentage
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring £81,585 83%
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
£9,880 10%
Volunteer contribution £4,600 5%
In-kind contribution £2,251 2%
Total £98,326 100%
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
219

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Connecting Steps
Connecting Steps, helping everyone enjoy the countryside
The objective is to encourage more people
to visit, enjoy and use the Sheffield Lakeland
green spaces, woodlands, reservoirs and
interesting landscapes and history. We
want to reach people who are not currently
accessing the countryside by supporting
the work of existing community groups -
including local community groups, refugee
groups, those working with new arrivals
and other vulnerable or isolated people.
Our project will extend the reach of these
groups into the countryside, encouraging
and equipping them to include countrysidebased
activities in the programmes they
offer to their members.
Connecting Steps
Percentage
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring £106,149 95%
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
£0 0%
Volunteer contribution £3,000 3%
In-kind contribution £2,250 2%
Total £111,399 100%
We believe we will create a more lasting
legacy of connectedness to the natural world
by extending the work of community groups
in this way.
220 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Art in the Landscape
Wildlife at Olive Mill Dam, Loxley Valley, walking distance from the city. Photo: C. Watts
The Art in the Landscape strand will
celebrate the creativity and rich heritage
of Sheffield Lakeland and will harness the
power of the creative arts to work with
communities in strengthening their sense of
connection with the landscape.
For example by:
• Eliciting a deeper, more emotional
response than a simple visit.
• Providing a frame to look at the
landscape in a new light or through
“different eyes”.
• Helping participants express complex
feelings, provoke thought / reaction to
address controversial topics.
There are 4 strands to the Art in the
Landscape project:
A Landscape Perspectives
B Fox Glen Heritage Revival
C ReSound – Sheffield Lakeland Song Cycle
D Supporting events – a small fund for
artist / performer costs
• Introducing new audiences to the
different aspects of the physical
landscape or identifying changes in the
landscape over time.
• Widening engagement with the
landscape to new audiences.
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
221

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
A Landscape Perspectives
B Fox Glen Heritage Revival
A well-being based project which will make
use of smartphones to engage participants
in activity led access to the landscape:
This project harnesses the therapeutic
benefits of access to the outdoors, via
an activity led approach, employing
smart phone technology. (Links to other
projects: Digital Landscape & Connecting
Steps) using activities such as Landscape /
wildlife photography, mindful walking and
geocaching as “the excuse to go outdoors”.
The project will deliver workshops and lead
activities a beginner level and will be based
around use of a smart phone (camera /
GPS). Participants will come from a range
of ages and backgrounds, experiencing
mental health problems, including anxiety,
depression, loneliness, low self-esteem and
may be drawn from within the SLLP area,
the urban fringe or be city based. Links
have been made with a GP’s practice in the
project area to support recruitment to this
project.
Fox Glen ‘bandstand’, Deepcar
Fox Glen was gifted to the people of
Stocksbridge by Samuel Fox in 1911 when
this former industrial site was converted
into a public park. The site is iconic in
Stocksbridge and is well remembered by
the older generations for its former facilities,
with paddling pools and a bandstand, where
performances were held until recent years.
The project will restore the bandstand to a
usable condition, rationalise the paths on
the site to make them more useable and
install interpretation, to give the younger
generations a glimpse into Fox Glen’s
fascinating past.
The project will involve work which will
mainly be carried out by volunteers under
the guidance, support and training of SVP
staff. Community involvement will be key
to safeguarding these sites for the future
and this project will aim to provide a lasting
legacy of infrastructure and interpretation,
which will help people to engage with Fox
Glen.
222 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
C ReSound: Carols, Communities, Songs and Stories
This image shows the area, original folk collecting notes, traditional carol singing, our work bringing it to
young people and the sharing it
ReSound will reinvigorate, re-establish
and revoice vital elements of the local
cultural heritage of the Sheffield Lakeland
communities: the distinctive carol tradition
of the local area; stories and songs of
the land and water, of past trades and
significant places and people; lost traditions
and site specific work.
ReSound will bring to life local material
locked in memories, archives, manuscripts
and the physical environment, and celebrate
it by creating accessible and inclusive
opportunities for all the community to share
and contribute to the project.
ReSound will explore, enjoy and engage
with traditional carols, stories, folklore, songs
and music of the area, and inspire new
work celebrating the local environment,
landscape and communities. Local
participants will be able to work alongside
professional musicians, singers and
songwriters, as well as contributing their
own family histories and taking part in a
range of community activities, including
local site specific work.
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
223

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
D Supporting events
A small budget to pay fees for event
performance, original composition or
choral / instrumental arrangement.
legacy of infrastructure and
interpretation, which will help people
to engage with Fox Glen.
Art in the Landscape, combined budget all arts
projects
Percentage
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
£44,610 81%
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
£1,480 3%
Volunteer contribution £7,300 13%
In-kind contribution £1,500 3%
Total £54,890 100%
Storrs Wood Woodland
Gallery, Stoneface Creative
224 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
225

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
The Digital Landscape
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Facebook Page screenshot
The Digital Landscape strand will make
use of digital media and the opportunities
offered by smart phones / podcasts /
Youtube to reach wider audiences.
Digital Landscape projects will run as a
golden thread through other Landscape
Partnership strands.
The following elements of the Digital
Landscape project are being delivered
wholly or in part by means of other project
strands and so are described elsewhere.
• Sheffield Lakeland website, delivered
by the Core Project (budget in Digital
Landscape)
• Telling the Stories of the Landscape, Flood!
and A Disappearing Landscape.
A small project sits directly under the Digital
Landscape heading which will be used to
develop and install a series of interpretative
geocaches to be located around the
Sheffield Lakeland landscape in partnership
with the Landscape Perspectives project
and local geocaching groups. Caches
will be located at key points along the
easy access walking routes developed by
the Gateways to the Landscape Project.
(Note the original project description
included a part time Communications and
Engagement Officer who is now counted
under the Core project).
Digital landscape
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
Percentage
£21,360 98%
£0 0%
Volunteer contribution £500 2%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £21,860 100%
226 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
227

KEY PROJECT INFORMATION
Sheffield Lakeland Community Grant Scheme
When determined people come together it is amazing what can be achieved – volunteers taking a well-earned rest in
Bradfield after completing the inaugural walk of the new Peak District Boundary Route in 2017.
Bradfield Parish Council and Stocksbridge
Town Council are the main supporting
partners of the Community Grant Fund.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
as lead partner will be employing the
Communications and Engagement Officer
and Finance Officer who will support the
project administratively.
A competitive grant programme running
throughout the SLLP Delivery Phase.
Available for a wide range of activities, all of
which must meet a heritage criteria of HLF,
with the aim of encouraging and supporting
wide community involvement in the SLLP
programme, particularly during delivery
phase where most of the budget is allocated
and the local community has limited
opportunity to continue to influence funds.
Although communities will be involved at
every level of SLLP there is a requirement for
a dedicated small project fund specifically
for their use, to facilitate projects and
activities that come from the community
and link their close interest to the greater
SLLP programme.
The Community Grant Scheme
HLF Funds required:
All salaries, overheads, full
cost recovery for SRWT
together with Monitoring
and Evaluation budget,
review of ecosystem
services and web hosting.
Partnership / match
funding £ secured
Percentage
£64,000 51%
£46,000 37%
Volunteer contribution £15,000 12%
In-kind contribution £0 0%
Total £125,000 100%
228 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

PROJECT SUMMARY RISK REGISTER
Project Summary Risk Register
Each project lead has been asked to review the problems they can foresee
encountering as they deliver their project and to complete a risk register which
includes their mitigation of the risks involved.
Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Who will lead this
The Core Project
As described in Chapter 7 - Threats and Opportunities
Monitoring and Evaluation
Bringing Local Wildlife Sites into, and sustaining them in positive conservation management and
Canyards Hills geological SSSI.
LWS’s could decrease if sites
are de-designated as they no
longer qualify for Local Wildlife
Site status.
Medium
Medium
This is mostly outside the
control of this project, but the
project should reduce risk be
engaging owners
SCC LWS team
In the case of this project
without appropriate
management 7 LWS are at
risk of not retaining positive
conservation management
status.
Medium
Low
With appropriate management
4 (and 1 new Local Wildlife Site)
will gain positive conservation
management status.
SCC LWS team
Landowners withdraw
permission to survey between
development and start of
project.
Low
Low
If permission is not granted
alternative sites from the
portfolio of LWSs in Council
ownership will be surveyed
and positive conservation
management implemented.
SCC LWS team
After survey land owners do not
instigate positive management.
Medium
Low
Consent is required from
the owners to effect positive
management by SCC.
However, until surveys have
been completed owners cannot
guarantee their permission
to carry out conservation
management.
SCC LWS team
Enhancing Wildlife Trust Nature Reserves – habitat improvements.
Non-delivery of agreed
outputs due to poor project
management.
Medium
Medium
This is mostly outside the
control of this project, but the
project should reduce risk be
engaging owners
SCC LWS team
Delays and cancellations
of contractors due to poor
weather. Medium Low
All activities designed to be
‘movable’ between delivery
years as poor weather can
influence ability to get onto the
ground
SRWT
Habitat work results in reduced
biodiversity value.
Low
Low
SRWT has included a review
by the community Ecologist
against development phase
surveys
SRWT
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
229

PROJECT SUMMARY RISK REGISTER
Midhope Nature Reserve
Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Who will lead this
Insufficient budget for all
practical works
Low
Medium
This is a large project requiring
significant time and resources
during the planning stages
in order to ensure capital
budgets are properly aligned to
outcomes, as such we will refine
and cost the project in the first
two years of delivery.
SCC LWS team
YW fail to receive a budget
through their AMP programme
which needs to be agreed
by OFWAT. This remains the
responsibility of Yorkshire
Water.
Low
High
Senior YW team are confident
but unable to confirm at this
time.
YW
Local planning authority fails
to give planning consent to any
development proposals that
are required.
Low
Low
This work will sit within the
existing (agreed) forestry design
plans, additional planning
issues will be managed by
Sheffield City Council.
YW
Natural England (adjacent SSSI)
and Forestry Commission or
any other approvals that are
required are not obtained.
Low
Low
This will be gained in 2019.
YW
Supporting Local Groups
Loss of an individual project
or failure of a project as local
groups have limited capacity. Low Low
The purpose of this project is to
support groups with lower levels
of capacity. SLLP team will
work with the entire Partnership
to support local groups.
SLLP core team and
Steering Group
Wadsley and Loxley Common
Past, relatively intensive, work
on scrub clearance led to
criticism from a minority of site
users which became ‘political’
and unfriendly.
Medium
Medium
The engagement and practical
conservation projects delivered
here will be carried out
sympathetically and in tandem
in order to bring as many
users along with the project
and to better communicate
the importance of ongoing
management.
SRWT
St. Nicholas Church
The most significant risk is
that a ‘community initiative’
will not be self-sustaining after
the HLF funded element of
the Landscape Partnership is
complete.
Medium
Low
We will work with this new
group for four years, their ability
to carry on after support ends
will form part of the monitoring
and evaluation programme.
SRWT
South Yorkshire Bat Group
The group is heavily reliant on
volunteers, as such the number
of people available to carry out
the project may vary a little
over the life of the project.
Low
Medium
The group is well established
with several core long-term
members who are unlikely to
leave the group in the near and
distant future.
Wildscapes and
Community
Ecologist
230 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

PROJECT SUMMARY RISK REGISTER
Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Who will lead this
Supporting Local Groups (continued)
South Yorkshire Bat Group
Bad weather or no permission,
all survey and events are
dependent on access
restrictions and suitable
weather conditions.
Medium
Low
The advantage of a Landscape
scale project is the ability to
pick secondary sites if primary
sites become unavailable.
Wildscapes and
Community
Ecologist
Bowcroft Cemetery
Lack of volunteer support from
the community. Low Low
Making the most of partners’
reach into the community -
SVPs volunteer recruitment and
support, including providing
transportation for volunteers to
this remote site.
Steel Valley Project
Rivelin Valley Conservation
Group
Conduit leading to Rivelin Mill
Dam may silt up as a natural
occurrence associated with the
movement of water.
Low
Medium
Hopefully the Sheffield City
Council will take action to avoid
loss of Rivelin Mill pond which
is has already invested many
thousands of pounds in.
RVCG & SCC
Rivelin Valley Conservation
Group
Danger to the public, creation
of the Rivelin Mill wildlife pond
and footpath resurfacing will
take place in active public areas.
Low
High
Special care will need to be
taken to keep the passing public
safe. RVCG is an experienced
conservation group with
established safe working
practices and appropriate
insurance cover.
RVCG with support
of SLLP
The Woodland Heart
Project fails to meet
conservation and heritage
goals. After investing in
excess of £200,000 the HLF
does not see the creation
of a sustainable approach
to woodland management
by the Partnership that not
only results in long-term
biodiversity and community
leisure gains but also creates
the basis for a financially
self-sustaining project
for continued partnership
management in the Sheffield
Lakeland area. This will reflect
very poorly upon the record of
participating partners.
Low
High
We will manage this by working
throughout the LCAP Period
2018-23 toward a common
vision and business model,
building on the new working
relationships established
between partners during the
development phase of the LCAP.
SCC, YW, SRWT,
Community
ecologist
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
231

PROJECT SUMMARY RISK REGISTER
Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Who will lead this
The Woodland Heart (continued)
Failure to gain required
permissions. There is a small
risk as we will be reliant on
other agencies e.g. Forestry
Commission and planning
permission in the PDNPA for
access routes etc.
Low
Medium
All forestry design plans are
agreed, only minor elements
might require specific
permissions once detailed
‘contractor’ prescriptions are
worked up. These cannot be
done until immediately before
work commences. If they are
issues it will result in the need to
modify plans nor cancel them.
To mitigate planning permission
risks no work requiring planning
permission will be carried out
in year one of the LCAP with the
PDNPA engaged from an early
stage in design and delivery
plans from the outset.
SCC, YW, SRWT,
Community
ecologist
Price falls out of timber
sales. Timber sales from the
forestry work makes up the
‘match funding’ partners are
contributing.
Low
High
These prices are conservatively
estimated and there is no
indication that prices fluctuate
significantly.
SCC, YW, SRWT,
Woodland Heart Steel Valley element
Lack of volunteer support
Low
Low
SVPs volunteer recruitment and
support, including providing
transportation for volunteers to
this remote site.
SVP
Working With Water – slowing the flow and improving water quality
Landowner consent withdrawn
between development and
delivery phases.
Low
Medium
Ten of the thirteen project sites
are owned by project partners
(YW & SCC), and discussions
have been held with the
other private landowners.
Extensive consultation has been
undertaken with tenants, with
site visits and discussions held
with all of the relevant tenants
during the feasibility stage of
the programme.
SRWT
Lack of availability of specialist
contractors, familiar with NFM
work.
Medium
Low
Deliver the majority of the
capital work using SRWT’s
Wildscapes team. Delivery of
the project will allow new staff
to be up-skilled and in-house
expertise to be developed in
this novel area of work.
SRWT, Wildscapes
Farm or landholding tenant
moves on and projects are lost
within ten years. Low Medium
All sites are freehold or long
tenancies, non-partner sites
will have 3rd party agreements,
partner’s have signed
partnership agreement.
SRWT
232 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

PROJECT SUMMARY RISK REGISTER
Supporting species
Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Who will lead this
Barn owl - Lack of public
engagement with the citizen
science project, lack of take up
of membership of the new barn
owl group
Low
Medium
Using existing interest groups to
form core of new project.
Wildscapes and
Community
Ecologist
Osprey - No risks involved in
delivery
Goshawk – withdrawal of
support by the Peak District
Raptor Monitoring group leading
to no delivery of survey work
Low
High
This group is competent and
committed.
Wildscapes and
Community
Ecologist
Water vole – hydrology report
states site unsuitable due to risk
of flooding neighbouring sites,
Low
Medium
Surveys carried out during
development indicate this will
not be an issue.
Wildscapes
Water vole - NE refuses consent
for works, we cannot apply in
advance.
Low
Medium
All licences and certificates
in place and species experts
identified. NE on Steering Group.
Wildscapes
The Hidden History
Volunteers discover nothing of
significance / interest:
Low
Medium
The desktop surveys,
consultations and scoping work
has been undertaken with the
express purpose of ensuring
the sites identified can be
interpreted.
SCC and SYAS
Insufficient volunteers take part
Low
Low
The consultation process of
SLLP Development has involved
the identification of groups
who are actively seeking to
undertake this type of project
and see it as a method by which
they can develop both their own
interests and the membership /
dynamism of their groups.
SCC and SYAS
Heritage Highways
Failure to identify routes.
Low
Low
Some routes were identified
during development, it’s
expected that others may be
discovered during delivery and
either addressed during the
delivery phase or afterwards
BHS
Failure to get old ways recorded
on the Definitive Map within the
delivery period.
High
Low
This is an aspiration but not
something we have included as
key outcomes for the project.
BHS
Failure to recruit volunteers
Low
Low
This was considered during
development and taken into
account when deciding the
scope of the project: There
are three core volunteers for
research and 15 for surveys.
BHS
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
233

PROJECT SUMMARY RISK REGISTER
Restoring the Lattice
Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Who will lead this
Loss of features which have
In order to minimise this risk
SLLP Core Team
received HLF support before
the SRWT will hold the Delivery
the ten year life requirement
is expired. This may occur
through accidental damage or
deliberate vandalism, but in the
Low
Low
Partners agreement and all third
party letters of intent until at least
2033.
case of most features outside
of SRWT ownership is most
liable to occur if the land is sold
without a legal covenant upon
the feature itself.
Restoring the Lattice - Steel Valley Project element
Lack of volunteer support
SVP’s project includes
SVP
volunteer recruitment and
Low
Low
support, including providing
transportation for volunteers to
Bitholmes Wood.
Telling the Stories of the Landscape
Insufficient recruitment to
activities. Low Low
Ensure the contacts for story
one are securely established and
timetabled.
Communications
and Engagement
Officer
Changes of staff mean that
Maintain contacts through “stand
SLLP PM
contacts established during
development phase are lost
Low
Medium
down period” between the end of
the development phase and start
of delivery.
Changes of staff in partner
organisations. Medium Low
A landscape for everyone to enjoy, physical access
Ensure delivery partners are fully
aware of the level of commitment
they are entering into.
Communications
and Engagement
Officer
Access to Heritage
SVP’s project includes volunteer
SVP
Lack of volunteer support.
Low
Low
recruitment and support,
including providing transportation
for volunteers to this remote site
Access to Heritage
Most works are planned
SVP
Objections from neighbouring
landowners, although Sheffield
City Council consent has been
gained.
Low
Low
for obvious routes where
owners are already on board.
Where landowners do not
give permission work can be
completed from the route itself,
not requiring permission.
The Final Step: completion of
This is large project across
YW
the Langsett Circuit
difficult ground, until work
Budget overspend
commences the exact quantities
of materials and amount of
groundwork required is not
Medium
Low
certain. Yorkshire Water has
appointed project designers to
undertake detailed assessments,
should the project go over
budget the risk is retained by
Yorkshire Water.
234 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

PROJECT SUMMARY RISK REGISTER
Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Who will lead this
A landscape for everyone to enjoy, physical access (continued)
The Final Step: completion of
the Langsett Circuit
No planning permission yet
given.
Low
High
This project requires planning
permission from the Peak
District National Park Authority.
This has been requested.
YW
Cut Gate - North America Farm
path
Failure to secure match funding
or budget over runs.
Low
Low
Most of the funding is already
in place, of the £58,000
required M4TF only need to find
£13,000. M4TF are experienced
programme managers and
are confident to underwrite
this ourselves. We have used
existing projects and real
costs to ‘calculate’ the cost of
restoration.
M4TF
Access to Nature - SRWT
Nature Reserves
Experienced project planners
and progress monitoring.
SRWT
Non-delivery, part-delivery
Low
Low
Maintain good working
relationships with the SCC
PRoW unit to help implement
works
Gateways to the Landscape (Reducing Barriers and Increasing Knowledge and Understanding)
Failure to identify / confirm
suitable locations or engage
partners. Low Low
Directly delivered with
established and supportive
partners, building on
partnerships established
during development phase.
Communications
and Engagement
Officer
Practical Projects, Volunteer Co-ordinator and Assistant Rangers
Insufficient volunteers.
Low
Low
If the project fails to attract
sufficient volunteers (50 adults)
over the period of the project
we will work with the HLF to
manage change.
SLLP PM
Failure to engage Assistant
Rangers or Assistant Rangers
fail and leave.
As with any ‘job’ the
engagement of the right person
is vital.
Low
Low
Should an Assistant Ranger
fail to complete their period of
employment we will work with
HLF to agree either a shortperiod
traineeship to fill the
gap or look to extend the next
one-year post to fill the gap.
SLLP PM
Assistant Rangers find
insufficient volunteer
opportunities.
Low
Low
There is a wide range of
existing projects described
in the SLLP to facilitate a
great deal of volunteering, in
addition the Wildlife Trust is
suitably placed to offer more,
suitable, opportunities in
the area should none of the
SLLP funded projects need
volunteers at any time.
SLLP PM
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
235

PROJECT SUMMARY RISK REGISTER
Landscape Connections
Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Who will lead this
Lack of uptake from partner
schools: There are many
barriers to getting schools
involved in outdoor learning/
field trips.
For example, the cost of the
session and the cost of travel to
and from the site.
Low
Low
We will help to mitigate the
financial costs by providing a
travel bursary for schools to
enable them to attend. Our
sessions are priced fairly to ensure
they are accessible by all schools.
SRWT has an established
relationship with schools in the
Sheffield area and a high level of
trust.
SRWT
Connecting Steps
People may not want to
engage with the project.
Low
Low
We will focus our outreach effort
to group leaders, in existing
community organisations,
providing appropriate marketing
materials to allow them to “sell”
the idea of the project to their
participants.
SRWT
Community organisations
closing during the life of the
project – network disappears.
Medium
Low
We will work with a number of
partners from the outset and
would be proactive at looking
at what other community
organisations could be involved
as an alternative partner.
SRWT
Art in the Landscape
Insufficient recruitment to
activities. Low Low
Work closely with partner
organisations to plan and obtain
buy in at an early stage.
Communications
and Engagement
Officer
Changes of staff mean that
contacts established during
development phase are lost.
Low
Medium
Maintain contacts through “stand
down period” between the
end of the development phase
and start of delivery. Ensure
good handover notes between
Development and Delivery
stages.
SLLP PM
Changes of staff in partner
organisations. Medium Low
Ensure delivery partners are fully
aware of the level of commitment
they are entering into.
Communications
and Engagement
Officer
236 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

PROJECT SUMMARY RISK REGISTER
The Digital Landscape
Risk Likelihood Impact Mitigation Who will lead this
Website: Delays in design,
quality, useability issues,
difficulty in establishing itself
amongst other websites.
Messaging unclear.
Low
Low
Work closely with the designer
with a clear idea of how the
website should work, monitor
performance and adjust
architecture if needed.
Communications
and Engagement
Officer
Social Media: Ad hoc rather
than strategic, fails to deliver
key messages
Low
Low
Work to a communications
strategy with clear messages
Communications
and Engagement
Officer
Geocaching: Caches may
get lost, stolen or forgotten.
Caches which are over popular
may result in localised damage.
Medium
Low
Work closely with local
geocaching community to
monitor useage and remove
any caches which become
problematic.
Communications
and Engagement
Officer
Final year My Sheffield
Lakeland Video – professional
quality not achieved,
messaging unclear.
Low
Medium
Work with professional
videographer and an agreed
brief to achieve the right feel and
deliver key messages.
Communications
and Engagement
Officer
Sheffield Lakeland Community Grant Scheme
Insufficient uptake of the
grants programme
Low
Medium
The PC and TC are confident
they can / will promote these
grants widely and that there are
sufficient local organisations with
impetus and interest to make use
of them.
SLLP PM
Poorly delivered projects reflect
poorly on SLLP and HLF
Low
Low
Groups will be asked to deliver
projects as they described in the
application, should they suffer
difficulty they can contact SLLP
for support / advice.
SLLP PM
Projects do not meet agreed
outcomes
Medium
Low
The assessment process asks
groups to identify outcomes, we
will offer advice and support to
help them be realistic. Grants are
only payable in arrears and in the
worse cases we may withhold
payment.
SLLP PM
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
237

While each partner who has created
a project has used Heritage Lottery
Guidelines to develop their budgets the
completion of the application process
to the Heritage Lottery Fund involves
translocating budgets from projects into a
format suitable for Heritage Lottery Fund
use. This spreadsheet outlines the changes
in budget as they appear in the Heritage
Lottery Fund application format, together
with a spending profile for each area of that
budget heading.
Summary of project totals
Below is a summary of the totals for each of the three delivery phases of the project.
See the following pages 239-242 for the full budget summary.
HLF budget area
Indicated
at first
stage
Total
second
stage
Delivery-phase capital costs 1637000 1625557
Delivery-phase activity costs 819591 1169830
Delivery-phase - other costs 489982 706600
Project total 2946573 3442328
238 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

Total split across quarters
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total
second
stage
HLF budget area Indicated
at first
stage
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Delivery-phase capital costs
Repair and conservation work,
habitat improvements, woodland
improvements, water habitat work,
drystone walls, cruck barns 855600 798155 10275 78057 60276 28742 21467 31388 120517 29882 20377 23627 21447 56177 16627 267237 11427 635
101400 26924 2000 1791 2051 2451 1590 1250 2890 3190 1773 1850 1990 1123 963 1123 883 0
Irecoverable VAT
957000 71921 885079
New building work habitat creation
and new planting 243000 213750 2550 5100 2400 400 400 2400 200500
27000 3050 763 763 700 62 62 700
Irecoverable VAT
270000 53200 216800
Equipment and materials (capital)
Chipper and trailer 14400 269294 22659.5 64801.75 24098.08 22623.08 14171.08 14449.83 40898.83 12452.83 5779.5 10422.5 4791.5 6408.5 8508.5 10363.5 2807.5 4057.5
3600 49867 3747.5 12983.3 3774.75 4331.75 2352.75 3691 4104 3764 1244 3131 1036 1556 1116 1183 936 916
Irecoverable VAT
18000 -301161 319161
Other capital work Interpretation,
access improvements, lost ways 231000 33595 837.5 3532.5 737.5 2687.5 837.5 887.5 687.5 2887.5 787.5 737.5 687.5 8087.5 687.5 737.5 2687.5 6087.5
24000 3226 169 149 148 148 169 149 148 148 158 148 148 548 149 149 149 549
Irecoverable VAT
255000 218179 36821
Professional fees relating to any
of the above (capital) Ecologists
and archaeologists, listed building
advice 115100 153701 3000 18000 7333 14600 8725 15000 4333 9000 9000 14425 11000 8000 17500 3000 7000 3785
21900 14295 590 2190 1050 890 1450 1380 368 300 300 1940 700 1350 700 500 0 587
Irecoverable VAT
137000 -30996 167996
Delivery-phase capital costs 1637000 11142.67 1625857
CONTINUES ON PAGE 79
239

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 78
HLF budget area Indicated
at first
stage
Total
second
stage
Total split across quarters
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Delivery-phase activity costs
New staff costs Delivery team 477546 769115 29687.96 46966.23 51581.88 50415.88 49278.49 49170.39 51308.72 52142.74 50130.98 47608.98 56177.11 48959.11 49264.82 45078.82 45780.62 45562.62
Irecoverable VAT 0
477546 -291569 769115
Paid training placements 4 year
long trainees 73045 73000 4562 4562 4562 4562 4562 4562 4562 4562 4563 4563 4563 4563 4563 4563 4563 4563
Irecoverable VAT 0
73045 45 73000
Training for staff 3200 27236 1637 2096 4885 2585 1635 1702 1722 1572 1806 56 656 2556 407 1057 307 2557
Irecoverable VAT 800 229 14 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
4000 -23465 27465
Training for volunteers condition
surveys, ecological and
archaeological surveys 6400 22857 332 3527 4622 632 2922 1182 1072 822 1922 1182 1172 822 1522 582 322 222
Irecoverable VAT 1600 2774 76.5 384 609 76.5 144 221 181 181 181 221 181 182 24 64 24 24
8000 -17631 25631
Travel for staff lease and fuel 16000 57008 11274.25 2723.25 4854.58 2804.58 2954.58 2653.58 4303.58 2653.58 2448.25 2598.25 4173.25 2598.25 2348.25 2823.25 2998.25 2798.25
Irecoverable VAT 4000 7307 1943 324.6 489.6 388.6 467.6 367.6 367.6 367.6 342.6 322.6 342.6 322.6 322.6 322.6 292.6 323
20000 -44315 64315
Travel and expenses for volunteers
tools, equipment, PPE 55200 47134 1208.35 3299.85 9255.58 3302.58 2852.58 3153.08 2659.08 2899.08 2787.25 2641.25 2437.25 2797.25 3017.25 1587.25 1753.25 1483.25
Irecoverable VAT 13800 5298 74.44 339.69 1491.61 320.61 300.61 297.61 292.61 320.61 292.44 289.44 262.44 334.44 292.44 134.44 137.44 117.44
69000 16568 52432
Equipment and materials (activity)
leaflets, projector, art materials 28500 39499 1616.5 3994.5 7927 1607 1157 2182 4974.5 1209.5 3074.5 624.5 4874.5 1509.5 374.5 724.5 3274.5 374.5
Irecoverable VAT 3500 4357 202 767 557 301 381 259 114.5 230.5 604.5 114.5 84.5 290.5 64.5 135 186.5 64.5
32000 -11856 43856
Other costs (activity) transport,
room hire 31200 37990 2199.13 5905.88 2474.58 2844.38 2194.38 1869.63 2019.63 3069.63 1744.13 2194.13 1844.13 2244.13 1994.13 2344.13 1744.13 1304.13
Irecoverable VAT 5800 3305 389.5 372.35 191.85 265.85 225.85 153.6 133.6 353.6 133.6 133.6 153.6 193.6 133.6 253.6 133.6 84
37000 -4296 41296
Professional fees relating to any
of the above (activity) species
specialists, farm adviser, geological
input, artists, ESOL 95200 68880 1000 3000 16400 6980 2500 2000 5000 4000 500 9000 1500 500 2500 14000
Irecoverable VAT 3800 3880 2280 200 600 800
99000 26240 72760
Delivery-phase activity costs 819591 -350279.4 1169870
CONTINUES ON PAGE 80

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 79
Total split across quarters
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total
second
stage
HLF budget area Indicated
at first
stage
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Delivery-phase - other costs
Recruitment Advert and expenses 1080 3850 2806 1000 44
120 0
1200 -2650 3850
Publicity and promotion, events and
website, display materials,leaflets 12000 54160 875 1575 3875 1125 2685 1355 2125 3725 1675 5155 6275 4415 5225 1675 3575 8825
2000 7614 75 169 535 95 350 185 165 785 250 945 365 835 775 175 195 1715
14000 -47774 61774
Evaluation external consultant,
report 8800 900 0 0 0 180 40 180 500
2200 100 100
11000 10000 1000
Other costs laptop, community
grant fund, social enterprise
feasibility, project overheads 65600 105989 1063 229 8677.5 9477.5 8677.5 8677.5 8677.5 8677.5 8562.33 8562.33 8562.33 8562.33 8562.33 8562.33 229 229
1400 11107 215 48 881.33 1041.33 882.33 882.33 882.33 882.33 882.33 882.33 882.33 882.33 882.33 882.33 49 49
67000 -50096 117096
Full Cost Recovery Including
overheads and line management 211818 274186 14181.34 15447.79 16769.46 19077.21 19528.21 18844.71 17775.38 16584.88 16329.88 16620.88 16641 16299 16564 16451 16295.19 20775.94
1742 57.94 121.44 150.44 150.44 151.44 124.94 124.94 124.94 91.94 91.94 91.94 91.94 91.94 91.94 91.94 91.94
211818 -64110 275928
Contingency 55800 20000 20000
0
55800 35800 20000
calculated
across
projects
Inflation
63164
In-kind Contributions 0 -11252 11252 11252
0
Volunteer time SRWT, Wadsley and
Loxley Commoners, LAF, Steel Valley
Project 66000 -149700 215700 215700
0
Delivery-phase - other costs 489982 706600
Project Total 2946573 3442328
241

Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding
Local Authority 144275
Other public sector 140800
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations 2430
Private Donation - Corporate 300000
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves 24880
Other fundraising 10000
Loan / Finance
Increased management and maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions 11252
Volunteer time 215700
HLF Grant request 2592991
Income Total 0 0 3442328
Meeting Heritage Lottery Fund outcomes
While the Heritage Lottery does not require
an equal cash spend against all of their nine
outputs, there is a requirement to consider
and address each of the three core Heritage
Lottery Fund outcomes for Heritage, People
and Communities:
The table below is a matrix of our projects
against the nine outcomes, with each
readily identified outcome identified
with an “x”. The red “x” indicates the
most significant HLF outcome that this
project meets.
• Heritage is better managed, in better
condition and recorded.
• People learn about heritage, develop skills
and volunteer time.
• Communities have negative environmental
impacts reduced, are more engaged with
heritage and have a better place to live.
242 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

Heritage Lottery Fund Outcome Matrix
Outcomes for Heritage Outcomes for People Outcomes for Communities
Outcome 1: A more connected and
resilient landscape
The Core project, a resilient
landscape
Steering
Group
Lead
Better
managed
Better
condition
Identified /
recorded
Developed
skills
Learned
about
heritage
Volunteered
time
Negative
impacts
reduced
People
engaged
SLLP - The
Core project x x x x x x x x x
Better
place
to live
Monitoring and Evaluation
Outcome 2: Bigger, better and more
joined up natural environment for
people and wildlife
Steering
Group
Lead
Better
managed
Better
condition
Identified /
recorded
Developed
skills
Learned
about
heritage
Volunteered
time
Negative
impacts
reduced
People
engaged
Better
place
to live
Bringing Local Wildlife Sites into,
and sustaining them in positive
conservation management and
Canyards Hill
Enhancing Wildlife Trust Nature
Reserves – habitat improvements.
SCC
SRWT
x x x x x
x x x x x x x
Midhope Nature Reserve YW x x x x
Supporting Local Groups
SLLP
Wadsley and Loxley Common x x x x x x x x x
Bowcroft Cemetary x x x x x x x x x
Rivelin Valley x x x x x x x x x
St Nicholas Church x x x x x x x x x
South Yorkshire Bat Group x x x x x x x x x
Woodland Heart SCC x x x x x x
Woodland Heart - Steel Valley
Project element
Working With Water – slowing the
flow and improving water quality
SVP
SRWT
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
Supporting Species Wildscapes x x x x x x
Outcome 3: Better recorded and
valued cultural heritage celebrated
by local people and visitors
Steering
Group
Lead
Better
managed
Better
condition
Identified /
recorded
Developed
skills
Learned
about
heritage
Volunteered
time
Negative
impacts
reduced
People
engaged
Better
place
to live
The Hidden History SCC x x x x x x x x
Heritage Highways BHS x x x x x x x
Restoring the Lattice SLLP x x x x x x x x x
Telling the Stories of the Landscape SLLP x x x x x x x
Outcome 4: A better understanding
of the local heritage with more
people helping look after it
Steering
Group
Lead
Better
managed
Better
condition
Identified /
recorded
Developed
skills
Learned
about
heritage
Volunteered
time
Negative
impacts
reduced
People
engaged
Better
place
to live
A Landscape for Everyone to Enjoy -
physical access
SLLP
Access to heritage SVP x x x x x x x x
Langsett path YW x x x
North America path M4TF x x
SRWT nature reserves SRWT x x x
Gateways to the Landscape
(Reducing Barriers and Increasing
Knowledge and Understanding)
Practical Projects, Volunteer
Coordinator and Traineeships
SLLP
SLLP
x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x
Landscape Connections SRWT x x x x
Connecting Steps SRWT x x x x x x x
Art in the Landscape SLLP x x x x x x x
Fox Glen Bandstand SVP x x x x x x x x x
ReSound Soundpost x x x x x x x
The Digital Landscape SLLP x x x x x
Sheffield Lakeland Community
Grant Scheme
STC & BPC
x x x x x x x x x
SLLP Steering Group Meeting, 4th December 2017, Agenda item 6
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
243

Considering project timelines and timetables
Landscape Conservation Action Plans
should demonstrate clear project
management, particularly in regard to
timetabling projects in such a way as to
create a ‘balanced’ range of activity across
the landscape and to ensure that projects
which are reliant upon each other run
concurrently.
The Gantt chart on the following page
covers all of the projects running through
the current phase of the Sheffield Lakeland
Partnership.
244 SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information

Outcome 1: A more connected and
resilient landscape
Steering
Group
Lead
The Core project SLLP - The
Core project
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Outcome 2: Bigger, better and more
joined up natural environment for
people and wildlife
Steering
Group
Lead
Bringing Local Wildlife Sites into,
and sustaining them in positive
conservation management and
Canyards Hill
SCC
Enhancing Wildlife Trust Nature
Reserves – habitat improvements.
SRWT
Midhope Nature Reserve YW
Supporting Local Groups SLLP
Woodland Heart SCC
Woodland Heart - Steel Valley Project
element
SVP
Working With Water – slowing the
flow and improving water quality
SRWT
Supporting Species Wildscapes
Outcome 3: Better recorded and
valued cultural heritage celebrated
by local people and visitors
Steering
Group
Lead
The Hidden History SCC
Heritage Highways BHS
Restoring the Lattice SLLP
Telling the Stories of the Landscape SLLP
Outcome 4: A better understanding
of the local heritage with more
people helping look after it
Steering
Group
Lead
A Landscape for Everyone to Enjoy -
physical access
SLLP
Gateways to the Landscape
(Reducing Barriers and Increasing
Knowledge and Understanding)
SLLP
Practical Projects, Volunteer
Coordinator and Traineeships
SLLP
Landscape Connections SRWT
Connecting Steps SRWT
Art in the Landscape SLLP
The Digital Landscape SLLP
Sheffield Lakeland Community
Grant Scheme
STC & BPC
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
SLLP LCAP Summary of Key Information
245

Monitoring and
Evaluation
“An effective monitoring and
evaluation framework increases
transparency and accountability
for all beneficiaries and allows
learning to be shared more
easily which in turn helps to
strengthen project delivery.”
246 SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation

Our monitoring and evaluation
framework
Our goal is to transform what is
sometimes perceived as merely a
reporting / funding obligation into a
beneficial learning and development
experience that will help project
leads plan for the future.
The information in this section has been
informed by the work of consultants from
Waymark, who have provided the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership with ideas,
strategies and a robust framework for
monitoring and evaluation.
Monitoring and evaluation is important
because it enables stakeholders, including
the Heritage Lottery Fund, (HLF), to learn
from each other’s experiences and to build
on this expertise and knowledge for the
benefit of future projects. An effective
monitoring and evaluation framework
increases transparency and accountability
for all beneficiaries and allows learning to
be shared more easily which in turn helps
to strengthen project delivery.
In addition to being a powerful learning
tool, monitoring and evaluation also
provides a way to quantify and celebrate
what has been achieved. From the outset,
therefore our approach is to encourage
project delivery leads to engage actively and
positively with the monitoring and evaluation
process, ensuring that everyone understands
how it will help them and how the learning
and evidence will benefit their own planning
and delivery.
Our goal is to transform what is sometimes
perceived as merely a reporting / funding
obligation into a beneficial learning and
development experience that will help
project leads plan for the future.
Measures have been put in place for
monitoring the progress and for evaluating
the success of the Partnership, at the
following levels:
• Individual project
• Individual delivery partner
• Programme-wide benefits
• Partnership synergies
SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation
247

All levels will be evaluated and will look to
answer questions such as:
• To what extent are the project outputs
contributing to the overall journey towards
the vision?
• Are the aims and objectives described in
the Landscape Conservation Action Plan
being met?
• Are the HLF objectives for landscape
partnerships being met?
• What evidence of lasting benefits are there
for heritage and for the community?
• What action needs to be taken to
maximise benefits or course correct
projects which are not delivering the
anticipated outputs / outcomes.
• Are there any lessons that other landscape
partnerships or similarly funded
programmes can learn from this one?
• Has working collaboratively as a
partnership been any more beneficial to
the Sheffield Lakeland area than partners
delivering to their own agendas?
• Are stakeholder organisations involved
in a better shape to continue delivering
benefits to the area after funded period
finishes?
248 SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation methodology
The monitoring and evaluation
framework will ensure that a sufficient
and suitable range of evidence is
collected and evaluated to show the
distance travelled as a result of the
HLF funding.
Monitoring
Information about project outputs and
outcome indicators will be collected and
summarised as part of the monitoring
process.
Unlike evaluation, monitoring is nonjudgemental,
focusing on the progress
made - building a picture of the situation
before, during and after the project.
Monitoring will be carried out systematically
over the lifetime of the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership. At project
and Partnership-wide level, a range of
measurement tools will set the baseline data
for the desired outputs and outcomes and
for measuring progress towards them. The
monitoring framework includes feedback
mechanisms so that any delays or constraints
impeding delivery can be identified and
acted upon as soon as possible.
Lakeland area and the benefits for the
people who live or work there or enjoy it as
visitors.
The project evaluation process will assess
the successes, failures and learning
outcomes of the work undertaken by the
Partnership. Evidence will be gathered
to evaluate the outputs and outcomes at
different levels as shown in this diagram:
Evaluation
Evaluation is the process of analysing project
outputs in terms of their impact, effects
and outcomes. For evaluation we will be
looking for evidence of the difference that
has been made, including the impact on
the landscape, the heritage of the Sheffield
SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation
249

As with monitoring, our evaluation work
includes feedback loops, so that any
constraints or lack of progress can be
addressed during the lifetime of the projects.
Outputs
Project data will be collected via an efficient
and easy to use online process that relates to
the HLF output data categories.
Outcomes
Project narratives will be collected in order to
communicate the impact that the work had
and the difference that it made.
Learnings
Outcomes not fully within the control
of the Partnership - however much the
projects have been planned and thought
through. Consequences can be intended
or unintended, successful or unsuccessful.
Capturing results allows lessons to be
learned locally and nationally, contributing to
the knowledge bank for future projects and
national programmes.
250 SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation

Bluebells at Bitholmes Wood. Photo Chris Prescott
A carpet of bluebells is a stunning
sight, but also a good indicator of
effective woodland management.
SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation
251

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership monitoring
and evaluation framework
Development phase Define process Identify measurement
priorities
Delivery phase Train and explain Develop tools and
methods
Determine the tools
and methods
Support
implementation
Learning and review
phase
Monitor and track Support submissions Communicate and
celebrate
We worked during the Partnership’s
development phase to put in place
a robust monitoring and evaluation
framework. In their capacity as the
programme’s monitoring and evaluation
consultants, Waymark has advised
on measurement and assessment
processes to be put in place - monitoring
approaches and evaluation data and
supported the Partnership by:
• Defining terms from the outset,
building on HLF monitoring and
evaluation guidance to ensure a
common understanding amongst
delivery partners.
• Working with project delivery leads
to ensure they are monitoring and
evaluation ready, so that projects
are ready to carry out their own
monitoring and evaluation, identifying
baseline data, targets and outputs
and outcomes, with an understanding
as to how this will contribute to the
Partnership-wide aims and objectives.
• Specifying how online systems will be
used to capture quantitative recording
of outputs for submission to Sheffield
Lakeland core team.
The screenshot demonstrates how social media can be a
powerful tool capture programme “reach”.
252 SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation

Agreed outcomes
As described in Chapter 7, the Partnership is
working to four broad outcomes:
Outcome 1: A more connected and
resilient landscape
Outcome 2: Bigger, better and more
joined up natural environment for
people and wildlife
Outcome 3: Better recorded and
valued cultural heritage celebrated
by local people and visitors
Outcome 4: A better understanding
of the local heritage with more
people helping to look after it
Collecting output data
In order to collect outputs achieved across
the nation-wide landscape partnership
programme, the HLF uses a standard data
collection spreadsheet. The spreadsheet
requires data to be collected under ten
categories as follows:
• Basic data
• Advice and support
• Biodivesity and landscape features
• Built heritage features
• Industrial, maritime and transport
features
• Museums, libraries and archives
• Learning and participation
• Access
• Visitors
Outcome indicators and milestones have
been identified in line with these outcomes
and standard measurement tools employed
to gather the evidence.
• Volunteers
The core team will update this spreadsheet
on a regular basis to inform evaluation
across the overall programme. Progress will
be reported back to the HLF by submitting
completed data output forms at the midpoint
and at the end of the delivery phase.
SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation
253

Progress indicators
A range of priority indicators has been
chosen to evidence key outputs and
outcomes for each project. These will be
considered in the round to see how and to
what extent each activity is contributing to
project and programme outcomes.
Output indicators will
‘count’ what projects
deliver…
Outcome indicators
will look beyond
counting to ascertain
the impact of the
project…
Both types of indicators include
quantitative and qualitative information.
Examples of the type of information to be
collected will include:
• The number of local people taking part
in heritage activities
• The profile of the audience attracted
• The number of volunteers gaining skills
• The number of events or training
sessions provided for
• Improvements to physical and
intellectual access facilities
• Knowledge and understanding of the
local heritage
• Awareness of the significance of the
area’s heritage
• Attitudes towards the heritage.
Monitoring tools
An integrated approach to monitoring and
evaluating projects is important to successful
delivery so that the work needed is “built in”
rather than “bolted on” as an after-thought.
Embedding evidence collection into the
design of each project will ensure that delivery
is focused on achieving the agreed objectives,
and that the necessary measurement tools
are in place to capture information.
Project progress
Each project consists of a series of planned
activities linked to the delivery of a set of
outputs and outcomes together showing what
it will deliver and the difference it intends
to make. There will be structured quarterly
meetings between the core team and the
project delivery leads to monitor the progress
of each project, support collaborative working,
on-going learning and identify Partnership
wide synergies.
All project lead partners will be required to
undertake their own project monitoring.
Projects will be able to submit a grant
claim on a quarterly basis. The information
required for the claim process is an important
opportunity to record progress against
predicted outputs, outcomes and progress,
including facts, narrative and supporting
evidence of in-kind contributions. To ensure
an efficient and systematic system, the core
team will provide an online reporting proforma.
All delivery partners will ask their
volunteers to record their hours on timesheets
so that match-funding can be evidenced, and
this data will also be captured by the online
system.
The programme manager will keep a central
Red, Amber, Green (RAG) rated, traffic light
project management system, to identify
whether the Partnership is on track and allot
time and support to resolve issues as required.
254 SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation

Partnership progress
To assist in managing progress and aligning
work to the Landscape Partnership’s overall
aims and objectives, partners have been
provided with a template showing how their
outcomes and outputs feed into those of
the overall Partnership. Projects will report
progress against this template on a quarterly
basis as part of their claims process.
Review of monitoring and evaluation
information will be a standing item on the
agenda of the quarterly steering group
meetings. Financial information will also
be presented to the steering group on a
quarterly basis to facilitate the monitoring
of overall spend. Project and programme
risks will be monitored through the Sheffield
Lakeland risk register and corrective action
taken as required by the programme
manager.
Partnership progress
A standing item at all steering group
meetings will ask partners for examples of
what has been achieved through working
together and what further collaboration
opportunities have been identified.
Responses will be minuted and used as
part of the annual monitoring review and
as evidence for the evaluation process and
final report.
Regular monitoring will help record progress
against predicted outputs and outcomes.
SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation
255

Evaluation tools
Programme evaluation needs to determine:
What is the difference that the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership is making to heritage,
to people and to communities?
To help demonstrate progress, an evaluation
matrix has been prepared as a working
tool. The matrix picks out a selection of
key project outcomes and maps them
against the Partnership’s outcomes and
HLF’s outcomes to provide an indicator of
progress. See full matrix on pages 257-258.
Below: To the reservoir, waymarking near Wigtwizzle.
Photo Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome
256
SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation

SLLP Steering Group Meeting
4th December 2017
Agenda item 6
Matrix of outputs and outcomes
Quantitative data Project Outputs project outcomes LP programme outcomes - HLF 9 outcomes
Baseline data outputs output indicators project outcome Evidence
evidence/measurement of
activity, achievement or
condition
what difference will this
project make?
Outcomes for heritage - with HLF investment, heritage will be Outcomes for people - with HLF investment, people will have
better managed better condition identified / developed skills learnt about volunteered time -
recorded
heritage
No vols
Outcomes for communities - with HLF investment: Organisational level
Environmental
impacts reduced
more and wider
range of people
engaged
better place to live,
work, visit
surveys
taking place
mapping
grp capacity survey
Outcome 1: A more connected and resilient landscape
Steering Group
Lead
A resilient landscape: identify and manage risks resulting from climate change and
enhance ecosystem services. For example, by the strategic management of invasive
4 scheme outcomes
SLLP the core
M& E framework &
species, reducing the spread of species specific diseases, reducing fire risk across
1 ‘ecosystems’ map. LCAP Reporting structure identified. See legacy
‘ecosystems’ map
project
HLF assessor
heaths and woodlands, safeguarding drinking water quality and reducing flood risk
chapter.
to the city. Supporting community effort wherever possible.
ensure optimal
outcomes at project and
M& E framework &
1. Programme Manager
scheme levels. ensure
HLF assessor
value for money for HLF
and other contributors
accurate submission and turnaround time and
2. Finance and Administration Officer HLF claims
timely payment
payments
ORRG Audit.
engage existing community newsletters. Social more people know quality of
Waymark
3. Communications and Engagement Officer
groups and the general public media interactions. Press about work of SLLP and interactions, coverage
Community
with SLLP
releases. Talks
support of HLF
and reach
Engagement report
Volunter groups led,
vols trained. trainees will have skills
4. Practical & Volunteer Officer x
volunteers trained, SLLP
evidenced via projects
organisations supported and experience
projects supported. Blog/diary
Monitoring and Evaluation - Ensure suiitable targets are set and being met. Share
learnings of this scheme for the benefit of future HLF funded schemes
Reports. HLF assessor
Outcome 2: Bigger, better and more joined up natural environment for people Steering Group
and wildlife.
Lead
Investing in our core sites: bringing Local Wildlife Site into positive management by
319 sites currently. Add 4 sites into PCM. 1 new
greater knowledge of
Richard Harris
statuses reported to the
species surveys.
surveying, developing and delivering new habitat management plans. Now includes
1 1
Species surveys. LWS. 7 at risk sites retain
habitat and species
SCC
national database
Mapping.
Canyard's Hill
Habitat surveys
status
distribution
Investing in our core sites: Enhancing Wildlife Trust Nature Reserves, making them
as listed. 105 ha restoration.
Roy / Rob SRWT 2 surveys
no of vols. Reports Restored habitats photos and surveys restoration 40
more resilient. 5 reserves - 2 of 5 reserves priority for wildlife
Using volunteers
new Nature Reserve created
Investing in our core sites: Enhancing Nature Reserves: Creating a new Nature
manage visitors
survey. FP photos & by enhancing and mana
Makes SL better for
Reserve at Midhope Reservoir by enhancing and managing the site specifically for Geoff YW 1
management plan
photos & video with wildlife as creation
video created by managing the site
wildlife
wildlife.
priority
specifically for wildlife.
Investing in our core sites: Enhancing Nature reserves: Supporting local groups eg
Wadsley and Loxley Commoners to improve their site for wildlife.
SLLP Core
attendance. Waymark
Learning by participation.
surveys. Qualitative
Waymark Grp
Volunteers competent
Wadsley and Loxley Common - aim to reinvigorate this FoG 2 x
Events, species records, scrub attendance. (no. Cit Sci)
feedback from teams
lowland heath capacity building
survey
and motivated
mgt
- social / photo/
video/ narrative
Microcosm of SLLP ,
digital mapping, wildlife
work with church
conveniently located, so management plan
heart of the
St Nicholas church 1 1 photos boundary improvements and evidence of taking part
and local
people will understand (digital)
community
community events
community
the rest of SLLP too.
attendance. Waymark
Grp survey.
Bats - professional consultants that volunteer to help other ecologists become
Waymark Grp
increasse capacity of vol Qualitative feedback
increasse no of vol
collab Connecting
1 x
events. attendance
better trained. Bat surveys will take place across SLLP: priority species.
Survey
bat workers from teams - social /
bat workers
Steps
photo/ video/
narrative
improve public
tidy it up to make it a nicer
Bowcroft Cemetary - come in and clean it up photos
photos understanding of historic photos cultural & heritage
place to visit
site
attendance. Waymark
Learning by participation.
surveys. Qualitative
Waymark survey +
Volunteers competent
Rivelin Valley 2 x
Events, species records, scrub attendance. (no. Cit Sci)
feedback from teams
capacity building
pond survey
and motivated
mgt
- social / photo/
video/ narrative
vegetation
improved
interpretation will
composition -
a co-ordinated approach Joint management a co-ordinated vegetation
Community
This is a headline
The woodland heart: co-ordinating management plan to sit over all the existing
Hectares of forestry brought
help people to
Dave SCC
Forestry Design
evidence in claims across landowners and a plan from 2023 to approach across composition -
NFM involvement will be
outcome - part of
management plans.
into this management plan
engage with these
Plans. Forest Mgt
vision for the landscape 2035 (see legacy plan) landowners broadleafed
key
the legacy of SLLP
woodlands.
plans.
woodlands
improve selected SCC woodlands for wildlife, enable easier and wider public access,
willow tit survey +
footpaths and
hectares of woodland
better managed for
as well as interpreting the heritage of these varied woodland sites. The project will Tom SVP 1 willow tit surveys
photos with claims
narrative about willow itit habitats 20
interprtation is
management work
wildlife, esp willow tits
be carried out by volunteers under the guidance, support and training of SVP staff
species nationally
secondary
Working With Water – slowing the flow and improving water quality. 13 wetland
SHU research on
SHU research on
increased wetland
increased wetland
projects will be designed with the potential of increased capacity during very wet
quantitative
quantitative analysis
Nabil / Roy SRWT 1 2
interventions at 13 sites photos with claims capacity during very wet
capacity during very
periods. This project will work with farmers to address slurry and agricultural
analysis on the
on the impacts of
periods
wet periods
pollution at key points in the network.
impacts of NFM
NFM
Supporting Species: working to support key species particularly associated with this
landscape, both in the past and present. Feasibility work will be critical before any
influence actions
combination of
contributing knowledge, report on who and how
Report on projects
delivery can take place, including exploring the potential to deliver a new white
surveys of species
(internal) for the benefit
public engagement
Jon G SRWT 4 4
advice and training to other they have supported
that have taken their
clawed crayfish habitat, enhancing existing or creating new habitat for breeding
and existing report
of wildlife and particular
and supporting
projects. Habitat work. other projects -
advice - report
waders, promoting owl boxes and monitoring barn owls, co-ordinating a plan to
species.
other SLLP projects
address the reasons for the loss of breeding goshawk in the area and developing a
plan to ensure the habitat is right for the osprey to breed
Outcome 3: Better recorded and valued cultural heritage celebrated by local Steering Group
people and visitors.
Lead
What lies beneath: surveying and interpreting Canyards Hill SSSI, and the
Richard Harris
connections between the landscape, geology and habitats.
SCC
Canyards Hill also
surveyed and
see 3
interpreted
1
SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation
257

landscape, both in the past and present. Feasibility work will be critical before any
influence actions
combination of
contributing knowledge, report on who and how
Report on projects
delivery can take place, including exploring the potential to deliver a new white
surveys of species
(internal) for the benefit
public engagement
Jon G SRWT 4 4
advice and training to other they have supported
that have taken their
clawed crayfish habitat, enhancing existing or creating new habitat for breeding
and existing report
of wildlife and particular
and supporting
projects. Habitat work. other projects -
advice - report
waders, promoting owl boxes and monitoring barn owls, co-ordinating a plan to
species.
other SLLP projects
address the reasons for the loss of breeding goshawk in the area and developing a
plan to ensure the habitat is right for the osprey to breed
Outcome 3: Better recorded and valued cultural heritage celebrated by local Steering Group
people and visitors.
Lead
Canyards Hill also
What lies beneath: surveying and interpreting Canyards Hill SSSI, and the
Richard Harris
surveyed and
see 3
connections between the landscape, geology and habitats.
SCC
interpreted
Qualititative for group
community effort and
The Hidden History, land before industry: exploring the pre-industrial heritage
cohesiveness and
Waymark survey -
increased volunteer
through surveying and recording little known earthworks and Roman sites. There
8 stories uncovered. a Group interactions -
commitment.
surveying and
existing group
capacity. Assessment of
help secure
consultants will kick
will be a focus on woodland archaeology where sites are due for felling or thinning
cohesive report together with evidence. Reporting on
Waymark survey for
recording little
community
Dave SCC 9 1 x capacity and recent
archeological gains and
archeological future
start community
– often a rich source of heritage because the ground has been left undisturbed by
a story board for the SLLP volunteers, Stories on
Quantitative for
known earthworks
archeaology project
project effort. ECUS
land management
of sites
effort
ploughing etc. An additional 'sub-project' will focus on Cruck buildings and their
website. Volunteer time. web and social media
group capacity and
and Roman sites
report
prescriptions as
place in the landscape.
activitiy. Land
appropriate
management plans
surveying and
Heritage Highways, Finding the ‘Heritage Trails’: Volunteers will work together to
Volunteers identify and
Cultural heritage will be
recording the
identify and research old highways and to uncover their stories via a series of new
Rhiannon /
research old highways and to
revealed, recorded and feedback from
network of guide
guided routes.. Telling the story of the traders and the goods they exchanged. Some
1 1 Current map
Mapping
Louise BHS
uncover their stories via a
safeguarded.and participants
stones (some listed)
of the condition surveys will be undertaken by trained volunteers from the British
series of new guided routes.
celebrated
and packhorse
Horse Society and Ramblers, supported by Sheffield Local Access Forum.
routes
Restoring the lattice: identifying and re-building gritstone walls that are of visual
significance in the landscape eg main road, packhorse route, but left to fall due to
self guided walk leaflet. Art
See practical projects.
stories and walks
Keith SLLP
leaflet on website
see Practical projects learnt walling
land management changes.17 separate sites will include training and community
wall.
Celebrate local heritage.
shared
engagement opportunities
People have learnt
Restoring the Lattice- SVP Walling - training and community engagement.
walling protection and km of wall restored at relevant skill about local
Unemployed volunteers becoming more employable. Drystone wall in town using
photos
photos 10 10
restoration projects
the church heritage feature making
church materials.
them employable
Telling Local Stories, Claire SLLP
A Disappearing Landscape – an intergenerational oral history
content will support
podcast. oral history
use of the stories and
project with farmers and other land based workers, identifying
added to the website wider interpretation of
archive.
reactions to them
changes in their lifetimes
SLLP
The Building of Sheffield Lakeland – the story of the building of the reservoirs.
More
exhibition of work / images /
attendance at
exhibition of work / images / readings of creative writing. Workshops in which
people have access to
readings of creative writing
exhbition
experiences are shared over a meal
this knowledge.
appreciation of HLF press coverage and
All the HLF projects amalgamated into one narrative narrative on website
funding
downloads
More people will be
aware of the history of
Flood! – A documentary style film retrospective of floods of 1864 and 2007 a film availability/showings Sheffield Lakeland the viewings
issue of flood
management
Outcome 4: A better understanding of the local heritage with more people Steering Group
helping look after it.
Lead
A landscape for everyone to enjoy: improving accessibility at key points on the
rights of way network, changing stiles to gates, linking to bus routes etc. Leaflets
SLLP
and interpretation to help people explore the heritage - with input from Bradfield
Walkers are Welcome.
wider range of people
ORRG audit. Fixed 3 important routeways photos. Km of
Access to Heritage SVP 1
will be better able
photos
point photography
improved
improvement
explore the heritage
wider range of people
photos. Km of
takes pressure off
prevent damage to
Lansett path - new section to complete circle round the reservoir. Accessible YW accessible circular walk
will be better able
photos
improvement
NA Path
heritage routes
explore the heritage
North America Path (aka Cutgate) - historic route of cultural importance that is
ORRG audit. Fixed
M4TF
intervention to support a SSSI km of path erosion control photos erosion control
suffering from erosion.
point photography
infrastructure improvement
wider range of people
SRWT nature reserves - access for people, causing less damage. Activity = remove,
photos. Km of
SRWT
items (listed on HLF
will be better able
photos
improve, upgrade
improvement
spreadsheet).
explore the heritage
people learned
ORRG audit. Fixed combined plan for
joint management strategic plan -
Gateways to the landscape: knowledge access. SLLP 1
plan improved interpretation
because signage
point photography interpretation.
plan partnership working
better
Practical projects, volunteering and traineeships: recruiting, co-ordinating and
volunteer time. Apprentices -
training volunteers (occasional and regular) to undertake a range of volunteer tasks
5 accredited with dry stone
trainees
Keith SLLP/SRWT CVs
certificates employability of trainees 2 will get jobs.
eg surveying, recording, land management. Volunteers would include young people
walling; 4 trainees with
employablility
from the city supported by Sheffield United Football Club Community Foundation.
improved CVs
Landscape Connections Learning in the Landscape: engaging children and young
Connecting children
people who live within the landscape (eg Bradfield Primary School) and who live in
Piliot projects -
children and young
sessions run. activities and
photo, video. Teacher
and young people
the city (eg Manor Primary School, based in one of the most deprived
SRWT
M&E feedback and
attendance people connected to
beneficiaries
feedback
with their
communities). The learning offer will include Forest schools (linking to the
school feedback
their environment
environment
‘Woodland heart’), ‘Landscape Detectives’, Farm visits to Our Cow Molly
Groups working with
hard to reach audiences Q: have these groups
Connecting steps: supported sessions to existing groups to encourage them to
Pilot - pre- project Activities and beneficiaries, as number of groups and will be equipped to subsequently visited
include countryside-based activities in the programmes they offer to their members SRWT
findings listed. Resource pack. Blog. beneficiaries
include use of the the countryside with
/ beneficiaries
countryside on their their beneficiaries?
activity programmes.
GP testimonial about
Art in the Landscape: Activities for people to do in the countryside - aimed at those
Claire
xx participants.
whether green
that are not nature connected. Wellbeing survey. Use of Smartphones - external is
1 survey 24 workshops, 1 exhibition,
improved wellbeing
SLLP/SRWT
Exhbition, survey score
prescribing is making
good for wellbeing. Green prescribing, Using arts as a vehicle for wellbeing.
a difference.
local heritage brought
Fox Glen Bandstand - physical works to footpaths and interpretation + event SVP photos, FP photos interpretation and event photo report
report
back to life
Workshops. Participatition event attendance & reinvigorate/ revive local diaries, video, photos
ReSound Soundpost
Lost traditions
events. teacher resource pack outreach feedback
traditions and audio recordings.
website. 5 geocaching. Social
The Digital Landscape: using technology to engage volunteers in surveying and
Analytics - google, FB, More people have quality of
SLLP
media sites. FB

Evaluation will take place at the four levels described previously:
1. Project level evaluation
Where applicable, projects will be
supported to provide a baseline measure,
(their starting point), so that they can
demonstrate evidence of their progression /
impact at a later stage.
The following selection of suitable
evaluation techniques is drawn from
‘Evaluation Guidance, Landscape
Partnerships’ (HLF 2014).
Group participation
Attendance at group events such as workshops, focus groups, forums
and storyboards will be measured and participants will be given
feedback options, including social media tools and online surveys.
Digital media analytics
Quantitative recording of usage of web and social media activity.
Social media interactions
Qualitative (e.g. collation of comments, shares and submissions)
Online feedback
Qualitative and quantitative information - collations of suggestions
received through online feedback form or online survey.
Quotes
Obtaining community and participants’ to show people’s changing
understanding or perceptions over time.
Digital photographs
To record and evidence activities and experiences.
Fixed point photography
Taken from an identical point to record change over time, particularly
for projects involving landscape work, habitat improvement or
archaeological restoration.
Video To record the complexity of activities and where appropriate, dialogue.
Audio recording
To capture feedback from and to provide record of both individual
interviews and group activities.
Broadcast items and
coverage
Radio, television reports or cuttings from local newspapers or magazines
– not only are they a permanent record of local interest at the time but
they can also be used to provide a record of changing perceptions.
Paper media
Workshop posters, leaflets, and other material produced by the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership projects and its participants
can be used to illustrate evaluation reports;
Group participation
Surveys (online and paper format) will form an important tool to capture
evidence data. It is planned to add an online standard survey form to
enable partners to self-measure their outcomes, thereby automatically
helping to evidence Partnership-wide outcomes.
SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation
259

Evaluation is just as important an
opportunity for community participation
as project design and delivery.
There will be separate generic survey forms
focused on skills training, local communities
and for visitors, each focusing on knowledge;
awareness; values; participation; access and
learning. The questions asked will allow
people to scale their answer on a specified
range, thereby tracking progress made
during the delivery phase and showing the
‘distance travelled’. Those partners who
have developed their own surveys will be
supported to ensure they cover off the key
criteria needed to assess the Partnership’s
success at a landscape scale.
The core team will offer organisations
support to define the best measurement
tools for their projects. Monitoring and
evaluation consultants, Waymark, have been
engaged to assist partners where needed,
for example in using different evaluation
techniques effectively and provide support
to projects to create their own monitoring
and evaluation plans.
Built into the quarterly financial claiming
system, all project delivery partners will write
a quarterly progress report which will be
used to obtain a sense of how projects are
progressing and capture learning.
To compare progress across all projects and
capture experiences from an operational
perspective, project delivery leads will be
asked to complete a standardised online
form with open questions and free-flow text
boxes, covering:
• The landscape and its heritage
• Working with volunteers
• Participants and visitors
• Involving local communities
• Working with paid staff and consultants
• Working with organisations in the wider
delivery partnership and associated
partners
• The overall Partnership
• Widening participation, and
• Information, technology and resources.
260 SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation

Partners will be encouraged to describe and
evidence successes and challenges and to
provide the core team with additional visual
and written information to accompany
each progress report to tell the ongoing
‘story of their project’. In addition, long term
volunteers and ‘Assistant Rangers’ will be
encouraged to keep training records, diaries
and blogs of their personal experiences and
involvement in the Partnership.
2. Partnership-wide level
Partnership-wide evaluation enables the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
to demonstrate how it has added value to
the overall landscape. An aggregation of
evidence gathered at project level and a
comparison against baseline data using will
be used to evaluate the success in achieving
the nine HLF outcomes for landscape
partnerships.
It is of critical importance therefore that
evidence which talks to the nine HLF
outcomes is gathered as consistently as
possible across the projects from the outset.
Two stakeholder consultation exercises were
undertaken during the development phase
in addition to more informal community
consultation activities. These were the
Access and Gateways to the Landscape
Appraisal by Sheffield Hallam University’s
Outdoor Recreation Research Group
(ORRG) which focussed on issues to do with
access to the landscape and the Audience
Development and Community Engagement
survey conducted amongst community
organisers by Waymark.
The results of these surveys have provided
the Partnership with an understanding
of the current audience profiles; potential
audiences; perceived and real access and
engagement barriers and opportunities;
the level of knowledge and awareness of
and values towards the landscape and
heritage of the Sheffield Lakeland area. A
follow up survey will be carried out with
local residents, volunteers and visitors to the
Partnership’s events and partners’ sites in
the final year of the programme.
We have set out to engage not only with
the communities who live in the Sheffield
Lakeland area, but also communities in
the urban fringe of the area – particularly
those who do not identify themselves as
‘connected’ to the local heritage. To measure
the success of this aim, and in accordance
with HLF guidance, basic monitoring data
regarding the background of individuals
engaging in projects will be collected. The
HLF standard participant recording will be
provided to all projects.
Sheffield Hallam University have been
engaged to ensure that data gathering
processes are valid, reliable and robust.
Additional evidence will be gathered to
support the evaluation of Partnershiplevel
outcomes, some of which cannot be
fully demonstrated by aggregating project
outcomes alone. In this, the following
methods of collating evidence will prove
particularly relevant:
Photos
Feedback
Surveys
Blogs
Collating
Evidence
Interactions
Videos
Bespoke
research
SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation
261

The above evaluation techniques will help
us to hear the perspectives of people and
the community groups, who are at the heart
of the Partnership. This marries well with
the community engagement ethos of the
Partnership, which is to support existing
community effort and leave a sustainable
legacy in that regard. Community groups
involved will complete a capacity survey at
the start of their involvement and at the end
of the delivery period.
In addition to survey data, feedback
mechanisms and unprompted interactions
will be collated as a measure of the
difference the Partnership has made.
Although caution should be used with
digital comments which can be selfselecting,
we will record digital and social
media interactions as a snapshot how
people feel about their involvement with
projects at a given point.
The above tweet is an example of a member
of the public engaging with a Landscape
Partnership, evidencing how he experiences
nature. The number of views, likes and
retweets is evidence of how the community
feel and are engaging.
262 SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation

Golden threads
The ‘golden threads’ are the crosscutting
themes that connect the outputs
and outcomes from different projects
together lead to aggregated Partnershipwide
outputs and outcomes. All projects
contribute to the achievement of the
Partnership-wide outcomes and these in
turn contribute to the achievement of the
HLF outcomes as shown on the matrix
above.
Each of the project outputs feeds into to a
series of outcomes. Some of the outcomes
will be derived from an aggregate of
individual projects outputs. Others will be
because of multiplier or ripple effects. In
particular, we will be looking for evidence
of multiplier and ripple effects across the
Partnership, showing that ‘the whole is
greater than the sum of the parts’.
For example, the Connecting Steps project
brings a group of new arrivals to work
together with a local group such as Loxley
and Wadsley Commoners, led by the
Practical Projects officer and together they
lay a new footpath.
The length of the
footpath is an output.
At a basic level, the
new footpath provides
improved access for
local people – this is the
outcome.
However, the way in which the project
was managed may also result in wider
social outcomes, such as the acquisition
of skills during its construction, not just
in practical skills but also in increased
confidence, enhanced social networks,
improved social cohesion). If, following this
activity, participants join in a future event
or encourage others to do so, these are the
ripple effects.
Such outcomes are notoriously difficult
to capture but can be some of the most
significant achievements of landscape scale
partnership working. Every opportunity to
capture examples of these outcomes will
be made through recording of individual
comments on video, social media, via emails
and one to one discussions.
Aspects of the programme which have been
identified as golden threads for Sheffield
Lakeland are:
• Supporting Species
• Telling the Stories of the Landscape
• The Digital Landscape
• Evidencing Ecosystems Services
• Community Engagement
• Communicating the work of the HLF and
other supporters
• Monitoring and Evaluation
The evaluation process will expect to see
these cross-cutting themes bring about
additional impact across the Partnership. It
will also seek to identify as yet unplanned
impacts and ripple effects.
Monitoring and evaluation sits within
the above list as an indication of our
commitment to embed a learning culture
and a culture of collective responsibility
into the Partnership - from the steering
group and the delivery teams to community
SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation
263

stakeholders and volunteers. The continued
buy-in from the whole Partnership will prove
essential in the collection of this data, to
ensure that accurate and sufficient data
gathering, including recording qualitative
feedback and distribution of survey sheets
regularly take place in a timely fashion
throughout the delivery phase.
External support for Partnership-wide
evaluation has been commissioned to
ensure that the framework set out here is
appropriate; that the data collected is valid
and reliable; and to provide help with the
application of evaluation techniques and the
production of evaluation reports.
3. Organisational level
Baseline measurement of capacity,
(volunteer numbers, staffing, project
scope) of charitable and community based
organisations will be compared against post
project pre-measurement to determine
whether being part of the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership has left a legacy of
increased strength in this sector.
Interim evaluation
A mid-point review will be undertaken by
our external monitoring and evaluation
consultants to ensure that learning from
initial project delivery is shared across the
Partnership as a whole, allowing the steering
group to reflect on successes and address
difficulties.
The interim evaluation will be central to the
planning of on-going legacy work, (Chapter
10) identifying areas of work which have
been particularly successful, those which
have proved to be dead-ends and others
which have the potential to be scaled up
for inclusion in LCAP 23-33. The interim
evaluation will be a key tool in planning
ahead to aid the transition from HLF funding,
providing a business case for continuing
investment in the Sheffield Lakeland area.
4. Steering group level
Interviews with steering group members by
our monitoring and evaluation consultants
will be used to assess if cooperative and
collaborative partnership working has been
beneficial and if so in what ways. Other
evidence will include management plans in
operation, an emerging legacy plan, and the
development of the follow-on Landscape
Conservation Action Plan (LCAP 23-33).
264 SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation

Publishing the results of evaluation
“From the ashes of disaster grow
the roses of success”. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, 1968
The work of the Partnership will be
celebrated through press releases, social
media, newsletters and other partnership
communications on an ongoing basis.
The screenshot below shows how another
project made particular effort to celebrate
its own and HLF’s achievements. The
core team has included a dedicated
“story line” within its Telling the Stories
of the Landscape project to celebrate
the successes of HLF funding which has
been provided to projects in the Sheffield
Lakeland area.
The programme manager will also
encourage transparency about projects
that have not worked as well as expected
and the learning from these will be shared
openly on HLF forums to support the
learning of other grant beneficiaries.
At the end of the delivery phase, the
Partnership will deliver a Completion and
Evaluation report, the aim of which is the
evaluation of the work of the Partnership
as a whole. The ongoing monitoring and
evaluation on both a project-level and
Partnership-wide level will feed directly
into this report.
This report will present how the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership has made
a difference to:
• Heritage
• People and communities
• The capacity of organisations involved
in the Partnership, and
• The environment.
The Completion and Evaluation report will
bring together all the quantitative and
qualitative evidence gathered throughout
the programme to tell the ‘story of the
Partnership’. It will include commentary
from our monitoring and evaluation
consultants regarding the extent to which
HLF’s outcomes for landscape partnerships
have been met. The report will also
highlight lessons learned for the benefit of
other landscape partnerships or similarly
funded programmes.
SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation
265

Highland cattle. Photo Russell Hague
266 SLLP LCAP Monitoring and Evaluation

Sustainability
and Legacy
“The Sheffield Lakeland Partnership
has considered sustainability
in depth since the Landscape
Partnership was first considered,
balancing new, time limited
resources with the long-term
objectives of the Partnership.”
SLLP LCAP Sustainability and Legacy
267

Sustainability for the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership
The Landscape Partnership
Sustainability remains one of the most sought after but difficult to achieve outcomes from
Landscape Partnerships. The Sheffield Lakeland Partnership has considered sustainability
in depth since the Landscape Partnership was first considered, balancing new, time limited
resources with the long-term objectives of the Partnership.
Two important decisions regarding sustainability are:
That we will not create a new ‘logo’ or
‘entity’ which cannot be sustained.
If a legacy outcome from the
Landscape Partnership had been to
support the designation of a new
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
or create new marketing for a tourism
destination, then we this would have
been a consideration. However, our aim
instead is to raise understanding and
appreciation of the Sheffield Lakeland
area for what it already is; part of the
city of Sheffield and the Peak District
National Park, of importance in its own
right and as part of larger organisations.
That we will work to build the capacity
of existing organisations - commercial,
public sector and non-profit making,
to enable them to deliver and expand
their remit, and to achieve added
value through working more closely
together.
The Projects
As can be seen from Chapter 11 Detailed
Project Descriptions, each project describes
the sponsoring partner’s aspirations for
sustainability. For some of the smaller
groups, this is little more than resources to
carry their current objectives through to
2023 and build some capacity in the way of
training and membership so that they are
better placed to continue their ‘good work’.
For other, more strategic organisations,
sustainability includes creating better
working practices amongst ourselves,
synergies through more collaborative
working and resultant cost savings, making
the work we will be carrying on from 2023
bigger, better and more connected than it
would otherwise be.
268 SLLP LCAP Sustainability and Legacy

Five year cash flow forecast
Each partner has outlined a five year, post Heritage Lottery Fund, cash flow estimate outlining the commitment
they have made to the ongoing management of the heritage areas funded during this LCAP.
Project Name Operational sustainability How will you meet post project objective 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 How will you resource this
Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife.
Bringing Local Wildlife Sites into, and sustaining them
in positive conservation management and Canyards
Hill
Enhancing Wildlife Trust Nature Reserves – habitat
improvements.
Programme of monitoring and maintenance drawn up
once management works agreed.
The nature reserves will continue to be managed by SRWT
under long-term lease arrangements or ownership.
LWSs programme of re-survey monitored by the
Sheffield LWSs Partnership which meets
biannually. Programme of LWSs re-survey
drawn up annually and completed by SCC
Ecology Unit and submitted to LWSs
Partnership. This work will be undertaken by
This SCC engaged work will casual be carried ecologists. out by SRWT staff and
£ - £ 406.00 £ 103.00 £ 310.00 £ -
volunteers £ 34,425.00 £ 34,425.00 £ 34,425.00 £ 34,425.00 £ 34,425.00
Estimate of costs is based on actual day rate and average of 2%
inflation per year. 2024 1/2 day @£101.54 x 4 sites = £406.16. 2025
1/2 day @£103.57 x 3 sites = £310.71. 2026 1/2 day @£105.64 x 4
sites = £422.56. This work will be funded directly from the SCC
revenue budget.
0.5 FTE Living Landscape Manager (PM) @ £16750/annum. Basic
LMT/WS mgt/main costs @ £17675/annum. Total = £34,425
Midhope Nature Reserve
We will be creating a ten year (costed) management plan
as part of this project. Partners are expected under the
SLLP Delivery Agreement to conform to this plan.
This work will be undertaken by the Community
Ecologist in consultation with the YW/PDNPA
Ranger and YW management.
£ 2,000.00 £1,500 £1,500 £1,500 £1,500
the estimated costs of ongoing maintenance will be incorporated
within existing YW budgets including FTE contribution to PDNPA
Ranger post
Supporting Local Groups
Wadsley and Loxley Common
St Nicholas Church
South Yorkshire Bat Group
Bowcroft Cemetery
Rivelin Valley Conservation
Woodland Heart
All the work carried out during this project is
designed to train and increase the capacity of the
local volunteer force with a view to them being able
to maintain momentum post-funding. N/A £ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
We would aim to leave a self-sustaining community group
behind this project which would not require continued
support. N/A £ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
All equipment will be ‘written off’ over the lifetime of the
project or through agreed disposal. We are looking
developing a stronger volunteer bat group by undertaking
this work. N/A £ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
Bradfield Parish Council own and maintain the site and will
continue to provide maintenance, including the newly
installed interpretation, through their groundsmen.
The RVCG began life in 1991 and has over 500 members
with 80+ active members helping run the organisation.
Therefore it is a long established organisation with its
primary task of maintaining the Rivelin Valley for future
generations. We are confident that our investment and
physical effort is used wisely and effectively and so making
good use of public donations and in agreement with the
SCC which helps agree our priorities and who monitor the
quality of our work to ensure it meets current regulatory
standards.
The sustainable woodland management plan 2023-50 is a
key monitoring and evaluation outcome for this entire
programme (2018-23).
The sustainable woodland management plan 2023-50 is a
key monitoring and evaluation outcome for this entire
programme (2018-23).
The sustainable woodland management plan 2023-50 is a
key monitoring and evaluation outcome for this entire
programme (2018-23).
Bradfield PC engage Groundstaff to undertake
our maintenance and repair work. An estimated
12 days per year are spent at Bowcroft
Cemetery, this will be retained for at least the
further five years.
Continued volunteering to maintain the work
we have undertaken. There should be no need
to invest in funds for materials or contractors
for more than ten years.
SCC are aware that post project maintenance
will be required. In some instances, where
ongoing commercial forestry is still part of the
coupe management, this will be funded through
revenue budgets
YW are aware that post project maintenance
will be required. In some instances, where
ongoing commercial forestry is still part of the
coupe management this will be funded through
revenue budgets
YW are aware that post project maintenance
will be required. In some instances, where
ongoing commercial forestry is still part of the
coupe management, this will be funded through
revenue budgets
£1,440 £1,440 £1,440 £1,440 £1,440
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
£ 14,000.00 £ 14,000.00 £ 14,000.00 £ 14,000.00 £ 14,000.00
£ 4,500.00 £ 4,500.00 £ 4,500.00 £ 4,500.00 £ 4,500.00
£ 630.00 £ 630.00 £ 630.00 £ 630.00 £ 630.00
Funding from parish precept being a budget of £1,000 for repair
works and 1 day per month on average for maintenance and safety
inspections by Groundstaff equals £1440 which includes vehicles,
tools and equipment.
Staff time to the Lakeland Project area in terms of Ranger
time 10 % of one ranger equivalent to £4000 and 10% of a
Woodland Officer time equivalent to £5000 per annum. Or
72 officer days. Maintenance budget of £5,000 /annum for
beat up of trees and spraying. So £14,000 per year to the
Lakeland area.
YW estimated that there will be on going costs in the establishment
management at Rivelin following the planting of trees as resilient
management Est at £2000 per ann. Woodland Management will be
£2500 per an to ensure the woodland management targets are
achieved, boundary management, tree safety, access routes, antisocial
activity management. This will be part of YW budgets and
supported by the partnership with PDNPA rangers.
SRWT post-forestry intervention will be restricted to the replacement
of 'failed' new planting, these costs will include contractors time and
replacement plants. All other 'ongoing' habitat management is
covered within their commitment to nature reserve management
above.
Working with Water – slowing the flow and improving
water quality
Supporting Species
The position regarding agricultural and rural support post
BREXIT is an unknown, however there are indications that
future farm / agricultural support from central
government will be dependent on ‘Environmental or
Ecosystem Services’ of some description. This project will
position the SLLP team and local landowners in such a way
as to demonstrably be able to ‘bid’ to whatever
mechanisms come into place post-BREXIT to support and
deliver such services.
We will be undertaking very little physical works, there is
no need to require 3 rd party agreements. Sub-projects are
time limited to associated SLLP projects while main
species projects have no ongoing maintenance
requirements.
The Wildlife Trust believe that working with 3rd
party land owners to deliver multiple natural
capital sollutions offers a high potential.
However, for this project we have not created
features requiring ongoing maintenance.
N/A
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
Outcome 3: Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and visitors.
Canyards Hill
Only PDF and an interpretation panel will be created
during this project
The knowledge of location and condition of archaeological
features within the surveyed areas will make protection a
N/A
N/A
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
SLLP LCAP Sustainability and Legacy
269

Five year cash flow forecast - continued
as to demonstrably be able to ‘bid’ to whatever
mechanisms come into place post-BREXIT to support and
deliver such services.
Supporting Species
We will be undertaking very little physical works, there is
no need to require 3 rd party agreements. Sub-projects are
time limited to associated SLLP projects while main
species projects have no ongoing maintenance
requirements.
Outcome 3: Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and visitors.
Canyards Hill
Only PDF and an interpretation panel will be created
during this project
The Hidden History
The knowledge of location and condition of archaeological
features within the surveyed areas will make protection a
more realistic option. A more knowledgeable community
will be able to carry forward the work to other areas, using
the archaeological fieldwork skills learnt during the
project.
Heritage Highways
The project aims to leave behind a legacy of 5 trained
individuals to continue the work post project, therefore, it
is expected that these individuals will be able to carry on
research of newly identified historic routes. Post project,
individuals continuing their research into the old highways
will continue to be supported by BHS Access & Bridleways
Officers and BHS HQ if required.
Restoring the Lattice
Dry stone walls are fairly permanent features and we
would hope that a good quality re-build should secure
each wall feature for at least the next 100 years. Where
appropriate they will be fenced to reduce damage from
grazing animals. Artworks will be retained for a minimum
of ten years as per the legal agreements but may be
removed thereafter if / when they become redundant or
dangerous.
Restoring the Lattice SVP element
Dry-stone walls are some of the most enduring features of
the landscape and if built properly, will last a lifetime. If
vandalism occurs or damage due to severe weather the
landowner will be responsible for safety maintenance.
Telling the Stories of the Landscape
These are primarily revenue projects. We will work with
partners to ensure that as far as possible materials created
are retained in an accessible format and available freely
for use by others.
Outcome 4: A better understanding of the local
heritage with more people helping look after it.
A Landscape for Everyone to Enjoy - physical access
Access to Heritage
Sheffield Public Rights of Way department will continue to
maintain the footpath, bridleway and byway network in
line with their statutory duties.
Langsett Path
Langsett permissive path will fall under Yorkshire Water
estate management maintenance regime.
North America Path
Moors For The Future have extensive experience of
upland path restoration and improvement. Our design
standards are such as to ensure, as far as is practicable,
that the route will not require additional maintenance for
20 years.
SRWT Nature Reserves The nature reserves will continue to be managed by SRWT
under long-term lease arrangements or ownership
Gateways to the Landscape: starting points to
explore the wider landscape.
The website will be retained for a minimum of 10 years
post-project, budgeted within our core overheads.
Maintenance of new interpretation and orientation panels
will be adopted by the relevant landowners.
Gateways to the Landscape (Reducing Barriers and
Increasing Knowledge and Understanding)
This project only has access to revenue support funds.
Practical Projects, Volunteer Coordinator and
Traineeships
This is a capacity building revenue project our target will
be to retain the initiative through new opportunities.
Landscape Connections
Once these sessions become embedded in partner
school’s timetables we hope that they will continue to visit
after the project comes to a close. We will charge an
affordable price for sessions in keeping with our outdoor
learning business plan. This will ensure sustainability after
the project comes to a close as schools will not experience
a jump in price.
Connecting Steps
Art in the Landscape
We are embracing this project as an opportunity to widen
our horizons and work with a broader range of
communities in partnership with dedicated specialist
community groups. We believe there are many
opportunities to meet our objectives by working with
others.
These are revenue projects. We will work with partners to
ensure that as far as possible materials created are
retained in an accessible format and available freely for
use by others.
Fox Glen Bandstand
Sheffield City Council are the landowner and will maintain
the features that will be built during the course of the
project.
N/A
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
N/A
N/A
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
N/A
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
We do not envisage any budget requirements
against these walls.
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
We do not envisage any budget requirements
against these walls.
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
N/A
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
We do not envisage any budget requirements
against these routes during the initial post
project five year period. £ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
We do not envisage any budget requirements
against this route during the initial post project
five year period £ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
We do not envisage any budget requirements
against this route during the initial post project
five year period.
We do not envisage any budget requirements
against these routes during the initial post
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
project five year period £ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
N/A
N/A
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
Described in Chapter 10, Sustainability and
Legacy
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
Individual school visits are not expensive and we
will be looking to promote sponsorship of visits
by local industry in future.
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - Not defined
There is no specific ongoing revenue
requirements of this project.
£ 5,000.00 £ 5,000.00 £ 5,000.00 £ 5,000.00 £ 5,000.00
During the first three years of the HLF funded programme we intend
to promote and develop this project. Local industry will be asked to
support individual schools or classes rather than whole programmes.
There is no specific ongoing revenue
requirements of this project.
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
We do not envisage any budget requirements
against these features during the initial post
project five year period.
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
270 SLLP LCAP Sustainability and Legacy

Five year cash flow forecast - continued
Restoring the Lattice SVP element
Dry-stone walls are some of the most enduring features of
the landscape and if built properly, will last a lifetime. If
vandalism occurs or damage due to severe weather the
landowner will be responsible for safety maintenance.
Telling the Stories of the Landscape
These are primarily revenue projects. We will work with
partners to ensure that as far as possible materials created
are retained in an accessible format and available freely
for use by others.
Outcome 4: A better understanding of the local
heritage with more people helping look after it.
A Landscape for Everyone to Enjoy - physical access
Access to Heritage
Sheffield Public Rights of Way department will continue to
maintain the footpath, bridleway and byway network in
line with their statutory duties.
Langsett Path
Langsett permissive path will fall under Yorkshire Water
estate management maintenance regime.
North America Path
Moors For The Future have extensive experience of
upland path restoration and improvement. Our design
standards are such as to ensure, as far as is practicable,
that the route will not require additional maintenance for
20 years.
SRWT Nature Reserves The nature reserves will continue to be managed by SRWT
under long-term lease arrangements or ownership
Gateways to the Landscape: starting points to
explore the wider landscape.
The website will be retained for a minimum of 10 years
post-project, budgeted within our core overheads.
Maintenance of new interpretation and orientation panels
will be adopted by the relevant landowners.
Gateways to the Landscape (Reducing Barriers and
Increasing Knowledge and Understanding)
This project only has access to revenue support funds.
Practical Projects, Volunteer Coordinator and
Traineeships
This is a capacity building revenue project our target will
be to retain the initiative through new opportunities.
Landscape Connections
Once these sessions become embedded in partner
school’s timetables we hope that they will continue to visit
after the project comes to a close. We will charge an
affordable price for sessions in keeping with our outdoor
learning business plan. This will ensure sustainability after
the project comes to a close as schools will not experience
a jump in price.
Connecting Steps
Art in the Landscape
We are embracing this project as an opportunity to widen
our horizons and work with a broader range of
communities in partnership with dedicated specialist
community groups. We believe there are many
opportunities to meet our objectives by working with
others.
These are revenue projects. We will work with partners to
ensure that as far as possible materials created are
retained in an accessible format and available freely for
use by others.
Fox Glen Bandstand
Sheffield City Council are the landowner and will maintain
the features that will be built during the course of the
project.
The Digital Landscape On-going maintenance of geocaches required –
The Sheffield Lakeland Community Grant Scheme
Groups are required to explain how they meet HLF
requirements around retaining and maintaining their
projects in their application.
We do not envisage any budget requirements
against these walls.
N/A
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
We do not envisage any budget requirements
against these routes during the initial post
project five year period. £ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
We do not envisage any budget requirements
against this route during the initial post project
five year period £ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
We do not envisage any budget requirements
against this route during the initial post project
five year period.
We do not envisage any budget requirements
against these routes during the initial post
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
project five year period £ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
N/A
N/A
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
Described in Chapter 10, Sustainability and
Legacy
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
Individual school visits are not expensive and we
will be looking to promote sponsorship of visits
by local industry in future.
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - Not defined
There is no specific ongoing revenue
requirements of this project.
£ 5,000.00 £ 5,000.00 £ 5,000.00 £ 5,000.00 £ 5,000.00
During the first three years of the HLF funded programme we intend
to promote and develop this project. Local industry will be asked to
support individual schools or classes rather than whole programmes.
There is no specific ongoing revenue
requirements of this project.
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
We do not envisage any budget requirements
against these features during the initial post
project five year period.
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
This will be taken on by the geocaching
community, but care will be needed to ensure
that messaging is not lost. £ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
N/A
£ - £ - £ - £ - £ - no budget
SLLP LCAP Sustainability and Legacy
271

Sheffield Lakeland Legacy
Heritage Lottery Fund Landscape
Partnerships are to be considered a ‘step
along a journey’, taking a partnership
of organisations working together in a
landscape from their current position to
somewhere else. It is important that a
partnership works towards its legacy from
the outset of its development and in order
to do so there should be some initial ‘vision’
and ‘mechanism’ in order to shape the
legacy and keep the partnership focussed on
the next stage.
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership has created and agreed a longterm
vision for both the partners and the
Partnership.
Our vision is to create:
A more natural and
resilient Sheffield
Lakeland landscape
for everyone to value,
enjoy, understand and
feel part of.
Our full vision statement can be read in
Chapter 3 Our Shared Vision
There is no requirement that the mechanism
to continue to deliver the vision, post the
Heritage Lottery Fund supported period,
need be a bigger, more cohesive or better
resourced partnership than during initial
landscape partnership phase. However,
a legacy should build upon the work
sponsored by the Heritage Lottery Fund and
result in a more sustainable and cooperative
system beyond the Heritage Lottery Funded
Landscape Partnership.
The next Landscape
Conservation Action Plan
(LCAP) 2023-2033
The management plan
The Partnership has committed to the
creation of a further ten-year Landscape
Conservation Action Plan, (LCAP 23-33), that
the partners ‘sign up to deliver’ together,
following on from the current delivery LCAP.
The exact mechanism by which LCAP 23-33
will be resourced and how the Partnership
will work together to deliver it is yet to be
formalised, however one key element of that
delivery will be ensuring sufficient resource
in terms of staff time to continue to facilitate
and coordinate the Partnership’s work.
During the current LCAP (18-22), we will work
across the Partnership and with the support
of our monitoring and evaluation consultants
to create:
• A considered evaluation of the
achievements of the 2018-2022 LCAP, and
progress on the journey towards our vision.
• Shared learning about what has worked
well and what has not.
• A review of our vision and aims and
objectives.
• The next Landscape Conservation Action
Plan, (LCAP 23-33).
• Vision statements and landscape scale
management planning for gateway
locations and forestry.
272 SLLP LCAP Sustainability and Legacy

Landscape Conservation
Action Plan 2023-2033
We will be going through a significant
time of political, economic, and potentially
social change during the delivery of the
current 2018 – 2022 LCAP. During this
period, our Partnership will look build
our capacity for collaborative working,
identifying further synergies and being
responsive to new resource opportunities
as they arise.
Key considerations in this ‘next stage’ will
include the nature of support for rural
landowners, as the UK moves from the
Common Agricultural Policy, (CAP), and
existing agri-environment schemes such
as Higher Level Stewardship, (HLS), to the
post BREXIT alternatives.
Following the direction of travel suggested
in A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to
Improve the Environment, (DEFRA 2018),
there is real potential to develop new
payment initiatives for the provision of
public goods in the Sheffield Lakeland
landscape - from cultural conservation
and leisure opportunities to natural
flood management and climate change
adaptation. The Partnership will be
ready to take full advantage of these
opportunities as they arise and as a
starting point has committed to deliver
the following legacy projects as the
‘backbone’ of LCAP 23-33.
A) Gateway management plans
Gateway management plans will extend
beyond the life of the programme, and
will be taken forward by the partners
involved at each location. This process
will be supported by Sheffield City
Council’s Outdoor Economy Strategy.
During the current LCAP, (2018-2022), we
will work across the Partnership to:
• Develop an integrated vision for visitor
gateway management at a landscape
scale across the Sheffield Lakeland
area - working closely with Sheffield
City Council, Yorkshire Water and the
Peak District National Park Authority.
• Make effective use of the available
partner resources to create a tripartite
management programme for the
conservation and recreational
development of these sites.
• Integrate the Landscape Partnership’s
work on forestry, supporting
species and archaeology into the
management of gateway sites.
• Undertake outreach work with other
facility providers and user groups to
ensure their input and facilitate a
shared understanding of the vision and
delivery plans, with a view to delivering
a co-ordinated gateway management
regime through LCAP 23 -33.
Below: Local artist in Storrs Wood.
Photo Stoneface Creative
SLLP LCAP Sustainability and Legacy
273

B) A vision for our woodlands
We will produce and deliver a landscape
scale sustainable Forestry and Woodland
Management Plan for the Sheffield
Lakeland area. During the current 2018-
2022 LCAP, we will work across the
Partnership to:
• Develop a vision, which will include a
visual representation of what that vision
will look like, for forestry and woodland
management at a landscape scale
across the Sheffield Lakeland area.
• Work to co-ordinate the existing
management and forestry design plans
of key partners, to create a tripartite
management programme around both
commercial forestry and movement
from commercial plantation to
conservation woodlands.
• Integrate the Landscape Partnership’s
Supporting Species work on goshawk,
nightjar, woodland birds and water vole
into forestry management within the
Partnership.
• Include the work that the Landscape
Partnership is undertaking on Gateways
to the Landscape and The Hidden
History, (archaeology), into forestry
operations plans across the Partnership.
• Undertake outreach work with other
forestry and land owners to develop
a shared understanding of the vision
and management plans, with a view to
delivering a co-ordinated forestry and
woodland management regime beyond
LCAP 23-33 through to 2050.
• Develop a partnership approach
to community scale woodland
management in broadleaf woodlands
and converted former commercial
compartments in collaboration
with partners and supported by the
Sheffield Lakeland Practical Projects
and Volunteer Officer, to provide a
sustainable income source for on-going
management.
Storrs Wood woodland gallery
274 SLLP LCAP Sustainability and Legacy

Delivering the legacy
The current Sheffield Lakeland steering
group will retain strategic oversight of
the current LCAP 2018-22. A separate
‘team’, called the ‘delivery group’, will
come together to ensure our delivery of
projects is co-ordinated and offers best
value for money and opportunities to
work together. This group will include
members of the steering group and will also
recruit members from front-line staff and
volunteers from within the Partnership.
In addition, a third group will be created,
known as the ‘legacy group’, which will
consist of:
• Members of the steering group (who may
come and go as required)
• Officers and volunteers from the
Partnership, whose role is ‘development
and resourcing’ of legacy options.
• Existing and new representatives from our
wider Partnership, who wish to become
more involved in future delivery.
This group will be formed in the first year
of the current LCAP and will be ‘charged’
by the steering group with creating and
resourcing the 2022 – 2033 Landscape
Conservation Action Plan.
The non-LCAP legacy
The monitoring and evaluation programme
outlines a range of outcomes that will be
monitored throughout our current LCAP.
The evaluation report will include a wider
range of ‘legacy results’ than this legacy
plan.
Initial resourcing of ongoing
programme coordination -
post HLF funding
In the past, it might have been reasonable
to state, or assume, that the public sector
would take on the role of long-term
co-ordination. However, in the current
climate it would be difficult to make
that assumption. Instead the Sheffield
and Rotherham Wildlife Trust, (SRWT),
has agreed to consider employing or
contributing to a member of staff, most
likely part time, to continue to support the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
for a period of five years post HLF funding.
In order to develop unrestricted funds to
allocate to any future legacy joint working
in the Sheffield Lakeland area, SRWT
will use the period of the HLF funded
project to promote and drive membership
recruitment and donations. The Trust
will aim to designate funds derived from
recruitment in the Lakeland area towards
the future legacy joint work. However, this
will only be successful if the Trust as a whole
can sustain its wider financial obligations
without drawing on these funds.
In many other landscape partnerships this
would not be feasible, as there would be
one or more other ‘membership’ based
organisations in the partnership. However,
this is not the case for the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership. SRWT’s
commitment will also need to be matched
by at least one other strategic partner.
The Trust has had early discussions with
Yorkshire Water, which currently funds a
ranger post with responsibilities within
the Sheffield Lakeland area. In four years’
time there is the potential to consider how
this post and the Trust’s funds could form
the basis of support to the LCAP after HLF
funding ends.
SLLP LCAP Sustainability and Legacy
275

In order to achieve the best possible level
of membership recruitment and donations
during the life of the project, SRWT will
seek to promote membership through all
suitable Sheffield Lakeland projects and
activities. Yorkshire Water has also agreed to
host SRWT membership recruiters at their
Sheffield Lakeland sites – for example at
Langsett reservoir.
SRWT membership is to be promoted
wherever possible through the SLLP
projects and Lakeland area over the course
of the next four years, with the aim of
designating funds to contribute to a joint
legacy partnership after HLF has ended. This
option for resourcing legacy staffing will
only go forward if it is also supported and
contributed to by at least one other strategic
partner, for example Sheffield City Council,
Yorkshire Water or the Environment Agency.
Photo: Russell Hague
276

Greave House Care Farm,
Stocksbridge. Evaluation
techniques can be as
participative and engaging
as any other part of
programme delivery.
Photo Ignite Imaginations
SLLP LCAP Sustainability and Legacy
277

Our Full Programme
of Projects for
Sheffield Lakeland
“Our partnership shares a vision
for a Sheffield Lakeland in which
a resilient network of diverse
habitats thrives alongside the
area’s living, productive landscape,
rich heritage, vibrant communities
and strong traditions.”
278 SLLP LCAP Projects

Project Index
The Core Project ............................................. 280
Budget summary ............................................ 286
Bringing Local Wildlife Sites into,
and sustaining them in positive
conservation management and
Canyards Hill ..................................................... 287
Budget summary ............................................ 306
Enhancing Wildlife Trust Nature
Reserves – habitat improvements ...... 307
Budget summary ............................................ 312
Midhope Nature Reserve .......................... 313
Budget summary ............................................ 321
Supporting Local Groups .......................... 322
Budget summary ............................................ 353
Woodland Heart ............................................. 354
Budget summary ............................................ 377
Working With Water – slowing
the flow and improving water
quality ................................................................... 378
Budget summary ............................................ 387
Supporting Species ...................................... 388
Budget summary ............................................ 396
The Hidden History ....................................... 397
Budget summary ............................................ 405
Heritage Highways ....................................... 406
Budget summary ............................................ 415
Restoring the Lattice ................................... 416
Budget summary ............................................ 429
Telling the Stories of the
Landscape ........................................................... 430
Budget summary ............................................ 437
A landscape for everyone
to enjoy, physical access ........................... 438
Budget summary ............................................ 462
Gateways to the Landscape
(Reducing Barriers and Increasing
Knowledge and Understanding) ......... 463
Budget summary ............................................ 476
Practical Projects, Volunteer
Coordinator and Traineeships ............... 477
Budget summary ............................................ 483
Landscape Connections ............................ 484
Budget summary ............................................ 490
Connecting Steps .......................................... 491
Budget summary ............................................ 500
Art in the Landscape ................................... 501
Budget summary ............................................ 516
The Digital Landscape ................................ 517
Budget summary ............................................ 522
Sheffield Lakeland Community
Grant Scheme ................................................... 523
Budget summary ............................................ 528
SLLP LCAP Projects
279

The Core Project
The Core Project is predominantly a
management and administrative process.
Sponsoring partner organisation and
main contact
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Summary
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership is a multi-partner programme
delivering a broad Landscape Conservation
Action Plan with the Heritage Lottery Fund,
Landscape Partnership scheme as the main
funding source. Such programmes are
complex and require close supervision, the
Core LP delivery team will be 100% funded
by HLF and will:
• administer the interactions between
partners and the HLF,
• run a number of small ‘linking’ projects,
• deliver projects where there is no lead
(Restoring the lattice),
• line manage dedicated project staff;
Project and volunteer coordinator,
Communications and Engagement
Officer and trainees.
The Team
The team will be a cohesive and cooperative
group engaged to deliver the Landscape
Conservation Action Plan (LCAP) and to
work together to support the individual
groups and projects within it.
Full project description
Staffing and Projects
Programme Manager (Job Description
attached, Keith Tomkins)
The SLLP Programme Manager will have
overall responsibility for delivering the full
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership;
for ensuring compliance with HLF guidelines
and the lead partner’s financial and
corporate processes. The programme
manager will also line manage the other
‘core SLLP staff’.
Landscape Conservation Action Plan (LCAP)
The Partnership will have produced a
Landscape Scale Conservation Action Plan
(LCAP) to deliver a range of projects during
2018-2022. The Programme Manager will
work with partners to deliver this LCAP
and to manage change in such a way as
to not detract from the overall purpose of
the LCAP. One of the agreed legacies (see
Legacy Plan) is to create an LCAP for the
partnership to run 2022-2032.
Jo Walker
Keith Tomkins
Projects overview
Individual partners have responsibility
for delivering their commitments within
the LCAP and to funders such as Heritage
Lottery Fund, but the Programme Manager
will have an overview of all projects and a
responsibility to review and report against
each one independently from the finance
and administration claiming and reporting
process. This will be an internal (partnership)
procedure reporting to the Steering Group.
280 SLLP LCAP Projects

Monitoring and Evaluation (Project
described elsewhere)
Each partner has agreed sets of monitoring
and evaluation processes to deliver as part
of their project. The Programme Manager
will liaise with the M&E consultant to
ensure suitable and sufficient monitoring
and evaluation is delivered at the end of
the project.
Ecosystems services map
At the outset of the Heritage Lottery
Funded process the partnership
commissioned an ‘ecosystems’ map of
the LP area. A review of that map will be
carried out toward the end of the project.
Finance and Administration (F&A) Officer
(Job Description Attached, Jo Walker)
While full responsibility for the
administration of the SLLP lies with the
Programme Manager, the Finance and
Administration (F&A) Officer will take
‘ownership’ of the reporting and claiming
procedures. The LCAP does not go into
detail regarding claims processes as
this will align with the Heritage Lottery
procedures, however, all funds will be
dispersed in arrears by the lead partner
upon the successful draw down of funds
to the lead partner.
The claiming process, finances:
The F&A Officer will prepare and submit
a claim and accompanying report to the
Heritage Lottery Fund quarterly. Not every
partner will be required to submit a claim
every quarter but, in order to maintain
budget cohesion, will be required to submit
one claim every six-months.
The reporting process, narrative and
Monitoring and Evaluation
All partners will be required to submit a
narrative report with each financial claim
they make. Narrative reports will be on-line
and include:
• A summary suitable for inclusion in a
combined report,
• Report against agreed M&E outputs and
outcomes,
• Reference to management of risk,
• Summary of financial claim together with
in-kind and volunteer contributions,
• At least one ‘representative’ photograph.
These reports will be combined to create:
• A quarterly, summary / update report
which will accompany the Programme
Managers Project Overview to the
Steering Group.
• An annual, comprehensive report for
partnership and public consumption.
Communications and Engagement (C&E)
Officer (Job Description attached)
The Communications and Engagement
Officer will manage a range of ‘arts’ and
‘engagement’ projects under the following
headings:
• Telling Local Stories
• Art in the Landscape
• The Digital Landscape
SLLP LCAP Projects
281

These projects are ‘cross cutting’ across all
projects and the C&E Officer will work with
projects to draw out the messages, the.
The C&E Officer will also work with the
Community Grants Scheme project delivery
group (Bradfield PC and Stockbridge PC) to
deliver that project (described elsewhere).
Project and Volunteer (P&V) Officer (Job
Description attached)
The Project and Volunteer Officer will
manage a wide range of medium and small
projects, including:
• Restoring the lattice.
The will also supervise (Line Manage) the
development of our trainees and support
the work of volunteers across the whole
SLLP Programme. The individual work areas
are described elsewhere.
Legacy Project (described in chapter 10)
From the outset of the Landscape
Partnership it was agreed that the
partnership would seek legacy outcomes,
the core SLLP team will be responsible for
reporting progress against the Legacy plan
to the Steering Group.
Vehicles, equipment and other shared
resources
There are elements of the ‘core budget’
such as vehicle purchase, some tools and
equipment which will be available to all
projects in SLLP that may need them. These
will be maintained by the Core Team.
Contingency
There is a contingency allowance included
(£10,000) which we are requesting in case
of unexpected occurrences, for instance
additional costs relating to recruitment
of organisational salary restructures etc.,
excessive increase in cost of materials. In
line with requirements this budget will not
be used unless agreed with HLF.
Supporting documents
Job Descriptions
1. Programme Manager
2. Finance and Administration Officer
3. Communications and Engagement Officer
4. Project and Volunteer Officer
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
This is the ‘core team’ of the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership. They are
responsible to the Steering group in relation
to programme delivery and the Sheffield
and Rotherham Wildlife Trust for fiscal
competence.
Other organisations benefitting or
taking part in your project or key target
audience
A wide range of organisations are benefiting
from the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership. These are represented on
the Steering Group and the organisations
delivering projects together with those we
are supporting through those projects.
Our Monitoring and Evaluation programme
will endeavour to recognise the overall
impact we have on the wider community of
organisations.
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership has been formed in order to
help move us all toward this vision. The core
project will support all other projects in this
process.
Strategic fit
• HM Government (2018) Our Green Future
– 25 year plan: “Our landscapes – our hills,
valleys and plains – were created by ageold
geological processes but the way
282 SLLP LCAP Projects

our rural and urban environment looks
now owes as much to the work of people
as nature. Down the centuries, we have
shaped and adapted our rural and urban
landscape to suit our purpose, not always
aware of the lasting effects of our actions
– for good or ill – on the appearance and
health of the environment. We will ensure
broader landscapes are transformed by
connecting habitats into larger corridors
for wildlife, as recommended by Sir John
Lawton in his official review.”
• The Lawton Report – Making Space for
Nature 2010: A new visionary, restorative
phase of nature conservation. Our first
SSSIs and NNRs were designated just
before an unprecedented increase
in agricultural production and built
development. These pressures continued
throughout the second half of the 20th
century and into the 21st, and for large
numbers of species their final refuges are
now in NNRs, SSSIs and LWS. But as we
have already seen, this putative network
is inadequate, because populations of
many species continue to decline, or be
lost altogether, all over England. So the
future cannot be simply about hanging on
to the sites that we have. If we are to stem
these declines, we have to do more. Very
simply we have to allow more space for
nature, by restoring chunks of the natural
environment on a landscape scale.
• Sheffield City Council Green and Open
Spaces Strategy 2010: ENV C2 Plan and
manage the collective contribution
of Sheffield’s green and open space
network, as part of the citywide
strategic response to Climate Change.-
planning and managing landscape scale
corridors as ecosystems by 2026: PL E3
Encourage business and partnership
opportunities with respect to sustainable
and productive land-use, forestry,
moorland estates, agriculture, waterways
and renewable energy.- Developing a
Strategy for the Rural Estates by 2020 -
piloting income generation opportunities
within green and open space by 2020
- developing productive land-use
operations as pilot businesses by 2026.
• QM L3 Adopt an overall collaborative
partnership approach to site
management and maintenance, led
by Parks and Countryside Service. -
establishing a core group of management
partners by 2010, to drive strategic
implementation. Develop the necessary
resources and partnerships to deliver
local practical skills training such as for
horticulture/ food growing conservation
etc.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
1. A more connected and resilient
landscape: The core team, delivering the
LCAP is the partnership’s approach to
creating a more connected and resilient
landscape. Our success will be considered
through the Monitoring and Evaluation
process, together with the partnerships
legacy programme.
2. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people
and visitors: While each project in the
Sheffield Lakeland Partnership will
be recording their work and helping
others better understand them it will
be the role of the core team, and the
C&O Officer in particular to help people
better understand and value heritage
conservation at a landscape scale.
SLLP LCAP Projects
283

HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
We will be helping a range of groups better
manage their own, chosen. Heritage. This
will be recorded through their reporting.
Outputs for people
The core team will not be directly
responsible for developing the skills of
individuals, however the P&V Officer will
be supporting groups and developing
individual and group skills through the
‘Supporting Local Groups’ project. They will
also be leading and supporting our trainees
and volunteers.
Our C&E Officer will be working to
communicate to the widest audience
the importance of landscape scale
management.
Outcomes for communities
As a whole the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership aims to address
negative environmental impacts through
various projects. The role of the core team
will be to assist this and to ensure good
value for money and optimal outcomes are
achieved.
The core team are responsible for the overall
‘engagement’ of the community through
the landscape partnership. Each project is
charged with engaging a range of people
and communities through their projects, but
the understanding the benefits of landscape
scale management will only come from the
core project and the Steering Group itself.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
The Core Team will cooperate and comply
with appropriate biosecurity requirements
of all sites we visit.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
The LCAP and Deliver Partner Agreement
contain the requirement for all signatory
delivery partners to meet HLF requirements
around retention, maintenance and repair of
projects.
There is a budget item for funds transfer
from HLF to the Lead Partner in order to
service the maintenance of websites for ten
years post-LCAP completion.
Operational
The SLLP core team will ‘manage’ the
Legacy Plan.
Strategic
The current HLF funded Landscape
Partnership is a step on a journey for the
wider partnership, a step within a strategic
drive for more comprehensive and cohesive
partnership working.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Environmental Policy
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is
committed to minimising and reducing
the negative environmental effects of
its operations, to protect the habitats
and ecosystems for which they are
responsible, and to conduct its operations
in a manner that reduces its negative
impact on the environment as a whole.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust has
developed an Environmental Policy and
several procedures from this, including
“Environmental Procedures for Land
Management”.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust aims
to keep use of pesticides to a minimum,
and only use them when they are absolutely
necessary, such as when treating invasive
species. SRWT has a separate procedure
to deal with the use of pesticides, and also
284 SLLP LCAP Projects

includes pesticide use in its Environmental
Policy. SRWT keeps a decision making log
to record all pesticide use and complies
with all Environment Agency procedures,
including requesting permission to use
pesticides in or around water. Only staff
trained to adequate levels, i.e. NPTC
certification, are allowed to use pesticides.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
avoids the use of peat-based soil improvers,
instead favouring the use of products
made from recycled organic wastes, such
as tree bark, wood-waste, and composted
green waste. Products should preferably
be of British origin, as local as possible to
Sheffield.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
aims to reuse or recycle any waste material
it creates from its sites, with the exception
or materials that are regulated and must
be disposed of in a suitable manner, e.g.
chemical leftover. Sunnybank has a compost
pit in which all organic material not being
reused is deposited. Wooden debris is either
used as habitat piles or removed from site to
be used for wood carving or fire wood.
There is no building on site, so opportunities
for reducing energy consumption are
limited. The Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust Environmental Policy
encourages staff to ensure that they are
energy efficient whilst in the office.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
purchases the most durable tools and
machinery and maintains these regularly in
order to ensure their longevity.
Land management team staff create
specifications for work being carried out
on site which enables them to calculate an
accurate amount of resources eliminating
waste in terms of budget and the resource
itself.
Risks
The SLLP core team risk register is consistent
with that outlined in the LCAP and HLF
application.
Climate Change
Mitigation – Cooperative and partnership
working has been identified a means to gain
better value for money and reduce resource
use. This would include carbon emissions.
However there is no intention to generate
evidence from this project regarding climate
change mitigation.
Adaptation and Resilience – This landscape
scale project will address areas of both
adaptation and resilience, specific outputs
and outcomes will be included within the
M&E report and ecosystems services map.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust aims
to use products with a low environmental
impact. When using pesticides or fuel,
teams carry spill kits to minimise the
impact of any spill on the environment.
Use of pesticides and machinery is limited
to trained staff who have the necessary
NPTC certification, and are therefore aware
of how to ensure that their work does not
negatively impact on the environment.
SLLP LCAP Projects
285

The Core Project
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Staff Salary 15,475.60 23,311.60 23,311.60 23,311.60 23,311.60 23,311.60 23,311.60 23,311.60 23,311.60 23,311.60 23,311.60 23,311.60 23,311.60 23,311.60 23,311.60 23,311.60
Amended salary difference 448.19 448.19 448.19 448.19 448.19 448.19 448.19 448.19 448.19 448.19 448.19 448.19 448.19 448.19 448.19 448.19
Pay increases 450.56 466.23 466.23 466.23 466.23 466.23 466.23 466.23 466.23 466.23 466.23 466.23
Recruitment 500.00
Funding area
Full Cost Recovery for regarding
SRW overall management of SLLP
in line with stage 1 application. 11,227.00 11,227.00 11,227.00 14,201.75 14,201.75 14,201.75 14,201.75 13,011.25 13,011.25 13,011.25 13,011.25 13,281.25 13,281.25 13,281.25 13,281.25 16,160.00
Funding area
Project Overheads
Vehicle 10,000.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 250.00 250.00
Travel for staff 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Expenses for staff 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Office equipment 600.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00
Training budget 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00
PPE 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00
Non recoverable VAT 520.00 300.00 240.00 240.00 300.00 240.00 240.00 300.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 300.00 240.00 240.00 240.00 240.00
Funding area
Professional fees 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 9,000.00
Non recoverable VAT 200.00 400.00 600.00
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Publicity & promotion 250.00 270.00 250.00 1,000.00 250.00 4,000.00 250.00 8,250.00
Non recoverable VAT 50.00 54.00 50.00 200.00 50.00 800.00 50.00 1,650.00
Funding area
Contingency 20,000.00
M&E
Legal fees 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
Non recoverable VAT 200.00 200.00 200.00
688,201.69
286 SLLP LCAP Projects

Bringing Local Wildlife Sites into, and
Sustaining them in Positive Conservation
Management and Canyards Hill
Lead partner
The project will be run by Sheffield City
Council Ecology Unit.
Summary
Investing in our core sites: bringing Local
Wildlife Sites (LWSs) into, and sustaining
them in positive conservation management
through the identification, conservation,
maintenance of species and habitat
features of substantive conservation value
and enhancement thereof. This project
will bring 4 sites into positive conservation
management, including creation of 1 new
Local Wildlife Site, and ensure that 7 sites
retain their existing positive conservation
management status; without this project
the latter would drop out of positive
conservation management. This will be
achieved by surveying, developing new
habitat management briefs and delivering
conservation management.
Canyard’s hill is an impressive ‘tumble down’
landscape, we will undertake research and
create a PDF and web page so that people
can find out more about it.
Full project description
This project will generate better ecological
information to inform and deliver better
targeted conservation management of
LWSs, so as to maximise their function as
important wildlife refuges but also their
connecting, stepping stone and buffering
qualities, and the support they provide
to other site networks. This project will
characterise the role played by areas of
intervening land as breeding, foraging and
commuting, refuge or other functioning
habitat. This will enable a better joined up
approach to management at the landscape
scale. Through the interaction with other
projects within the overall scheme, this
project will contribute to landscape-scale
restoration of ecosystems. Better ecological
condition and management will be achieved
through a process of survey and mapping
what wildlife is present and its distribution
across the 11 sites and selective areas of
intervening land area. This will enable
us to make informed decisions to target
conservation efforts to restore and re-create
habitats and re-establish functional links to
contribute towards halting and reversing
biodiversity loss across the Lakeland
Landscape Partnership area and beyond.
What will be achieved?
Sheffield currently has a total number of
Local Sites is 319 comprising of 253 LWSs
and 66 Local Geological Sites. Through the
actions of the Local Wildlife Sites Partnership
the total number of Local Sites currently in
positive management will be 144 or 45.1% (all
LWS) in 2018. This is an increase of 4 (1.2%) on
the position at year end of 2016/2017.
As a result of this project, as a minimum, 7
LWS at risk of losing positive conservation
management status are retained and
4 (1 new) gain positive conservation
management status . Therefore, at the
end of this project the percentage of sites,
SLLP LCAP Projects
287

as a minimum, in positive conservation
management will have risen to 46.25%
(148 out of 320) . However, it is important to
emphasise if additional LWSs are identified
through this project, and brought into
positive conservation management, this
percentage will increase again.
Intervening land areas (not designated
as LWS) have a significant role to play in
terms of their contribution to ecological
function and this project will characterise
the part they play as buffers, their
connecting function, or otherwise identify
their contribution to the landscapescale
ecological network. These areas are
primarily agricultural land, but include any
type of semi-natural habitat in between
LWSs. In addition this project will facilitate
conservation management which otherwise
would not have been as informed, nor as
effectively targeted towards priority species
or habitats , nor carried out to such a
standard to optimise the benefit for those
habitats and species.
There are 69 LWSs in the project area. The
area of LWSs in the Landscape area but not
within the PDNPA is approximately 1310 Ha
out of 4995 Ha which equates to 26% of the
total SLLP area.
This project has the potential for direct
positive impact over 3% of the area outside
of the PDNPA but within the SLLP, and
indirect effects in the vicinity of the sites
themselves. However, taken in conjunction
with the other projects as part of the
wider SLLP scheme and combined with
programmed work across the LWSs area, the
benefits accrued will be greater and over
a much wider area within the programme
boundary and beyond.
Background and context
Local Wildlife Sites
The project hinges on the concept of LWSs.
Some explanation of what a Local Wildlife
Site is and how it is designated is necessary
to put the project in context.
LWSs are non-statutory sites designated
for their substantive nature conservation
value. It is also helpful to define what the
word ‘substantive’ is in terms of nature
conservation value and the local context.
It may include a variety of factors. Defra’s
Guidelines give the following factors:
• differing abundance and therefore
significance of the nature conservation
resources, for example between rural
areas and urban areas;
• general paucity of natural interest in the
area; and,
• the importance of certain features at the
edge of their range.
• determining criteria thresholds for the
nature conservation benefits to be
secured through any particular Local
Sites system. This will involve considering
the amount and distribution of locally
significant species, habitats and
geological features to be selected into the
system;
• distribution, abundance and increasing
or declining trends in the nature
conservation resources;
• maintaining viable populations and
functioning ecological communities
They are areas identified and selected
locally for their nature conservation value
based on their importance in the local
context, although they may be important
in a district, regional or national context
too. The reason for the selection of sites is
to provide recognition of the substantive
nature conservation value of these sites
288 SLLP LCAP Projects

and to help conserve those features. They
are designated by a Local Sites Partnership
comprised of organisations with an interest
in biodiversity conservation locally.
Sheffield sites are very varied; they can be
public or private land, they can be large or
small, they cover a wide range of habitats
from open heathlands to ancient woodlands
and include linear features such as water
courses a dominant feature in Sheffield’s
topography. Sites can also be designated
for a particular species or assemblage
of species or as an example of a specific
habitat.
Although they are discrete sites in the
landscape, the series of LWSs (together with
other networks such as SSSIs) can act to
maintain the nature conservation interest
of the Sheffield region by supporting viable
populations and functioning ecological
communities. Through their connecting,
stepping stone and buffering qualities,
they support other site networks . They are
numerous and distributed throughout the
Sheffield region (253 LWSs ranging in size
from 0.09 Ha to 161 Ha).
Local Sites are sites of substantive nature
conservation value and although they
do not have any statutory status. The
Defra guidance states ‘In most areas,
local authorities, working with other local
partners, have set up systems of locally
valued non-statutory sites.’ A Local Sites
system is not a statutory requirement
and how it is implemented is open to
interpretation.
Positive conservation management
The following is taken from the Defra
guidance.
‘To show that positive conservation
management is being undertaken on a
Local Site, there must be documented
evidence of management that contributes
to maintaining or enhancing the features
of interest for which a site has been
selected and designated. The nature of the
management activity appropriate to interest
features of a site will commonly be defined
within one, or more of the following:
• site management plan
• management schemes - agri-environment
or conservation management agreement
or scheme
• relevant Biodiversity Action Plan
• management guidance and advice
In the case of management guidance and
advice documentation should provide clear
evidence of the management activity that
has been undertaken, included when it was
undertaken, and that such management is
in accord with the management advice for
the site.’
More information on Indicator 160-00 can
be found at:
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/
biodiversity/documents/single-data-listguidance.pdf
Local Wildlife Sites selection process
LWSs have been designated according
to what constitutes substantive nature
conservation interest. What this is is set out
in the site selection criteria and reflects the
local context as well as national priorities.
Sheffield’s selection criteria follow the five
points set out in the 2006 Defra Guidelines.
• Local Sites networks provide a
comprehensive rather than representative
suite of sites.
• Local Sites provide wildlife refuges for most
of the UK’s fauna and flora and through
their connecting and buffering qualities,
they complement other site networks.
• Local Sites have a significant role to play
in meeting overall national biodiversity
targets.
SLLP LCAP Projects
289

• Local Sites represent local character and
distinctiveness.
• Local Sites contribute to the quality of
life and the well-being of the community,
with many sites providing opportunities
for research and education.
All proposed new sites and re-surveyed
sites will be evaluated under these criteria.
These criteria so far are:
• Upland woodlands – 2012
• Heathlands – 2012
• Grasslands – 2012
• Lowland woods – 2017
• Bats – 2017
• Ponds and Standing water – Draft
produced 2017
Further criteria will be developed in 2018.
The site surveyor will make an evidenced
based judgement using the selection
criteria, whether a site should be a LWS,
or that it still qualifies under these criteria
to be retained as a LWS. A citation sheet
is then produced giving the key points for
the designation with direct reference to the
evidence collected in the field.
What we will do as part of this project
Ecologists to undertake habitat and wildlife
surveys and complete management briefs
for LWSs over a three year period. Carry
out additional specialist species surveys as
required.
Ecologists to undertake habitat and wildlife
surveys and complete management briefs
for new LWSs and the selective intervening
land area to buffer, connect or otherwise
positively contribute to a landscape-scale
ecological network.
Management work undertaken informed by
surveys.
The process of surveying a Local Wildlife Site
There is a standard process and form for
surveying a LWS. This is as follows
1. Permission (as appropriate ) must be
obtained from the land owner prior to the
survey being carried out.
2. Desk top survey
3. Carry out field work. The data required and
collected on site comprise
4. A site description with reference to the
appropriate criteria (see above)
5. Species lists using the DAFOR scale of
abundance
6. An annotated map and photographs
7. Key species/habitat Target Noted (TN) and
marked on the map. They may be given a
six figure grid reference (not a site centroid)
8. Evidence of management to indicate that
the site is in positive management
9. Recommendations for management
The survey records any boundary changes
that should be considered. This includes
expansion of the size of the LWS to reflect
areas outside the current boundary having
interest that merits it being included within
the site boundary. Conversely, the LWS size
may be reduced due to a reduction in the
conservation interest. This should only take
place when it has been established that
management cannot restore species status/
habitats. All changes must be presented
to the Local Wildlife Site Partnership for
approval.
If management is required this should be
noted and communicated to the owner.
The records collected during the survey are
added to the Sheffield Biological Record
Centre (SBRC).
290 SLLP LCAP Projects

The citation sheet which notes the
conservation interest of the site and the
reasons for the LWS designation is updated
to reflect the new survey data.
The site owner is given a copy of the survey if
requested.
Survey Approach
LWSs survey provides a relatively rapid
assessment, and provides botanical species
lists, along with descriptive ‘target notes’
which give an account of particular areas of
interest, will enable the nature of habitats,
their location, extent and distribution to
be characterised. This will be augmented
with more detailed information such as,
further appraisal of habitat areas for legally
protected or priority species and habitats
which will form the basis of establishing
any requirements for further more detailed
surveys e.g. surveys for bats or breeding birds,
which will be undertaken as part of this
project, to subsequently be used to inform
and deliver conservation management.
Detailed habitat maps will be produced
to scale between 1:2500 to 1:10000.
Phase 1 habitat maps will be mapped
onto GIS. Taken together this will be used
to inform decision-making and direct
the implementation of conservation
management. Funding will be used to
facilitate either positive conservation
management status or retention of that
status through habitat management
identified and implemented by this project.
Once surveys are completed areas of
selective intervening land between LWSs will
be assessed using aerial photography and
targeted Phase 1 surveys undertaken where
appropriate.
The proposal is to undertake a program
of LWSs surveys and further habitat and
species surveys across 11 sites (10 LWSs)
within the Lakeland Partnership Area
between 2019 and 2022.
The proposals go above and beyond
guidance and recommendations for
identification, selection and management
of Local Sites.
Management Brief
The following will also be devised:
i) Management condition and description
of management which is apparent
during survey
ii) Status of LWS features and
recommendations for retention
iii) Management recommendations.
These will be discussed with the land
owner and a set of agreed prescriptions
developed.
This research and survey will inform
production of a long-term area based
management plan for identifying
and carrying out habitat protection
improvements. These plans will follow the
format of and linking with the Sheffield
Moors Masterplan and The Eastern Moors
Management Plan.
Habitat Management
Without knowledge of what wildlife
is present and its distribution it is not
possible to halt and reverse its loss. By
establishing what wildlife and habitats
are present across the project area we will
be able to identify what action to take,
and in conjunction with partners, enable
the delivery of management of sites as
wildlife refuges, but also to establish a
coherent and resilient ecological network
thereby restoring functional links and reestablishing
ecological processes and
ecosystem services to the benefit of both
people and wildlife. As part of this project
we will look to link, buffer and extend
existing sites, and establish new sites of
substantive wildlife value. Not only will this
provide wildlife with the best opportunity to
thrive, but allow it to expand and adapt to
SLLP LCAP Projects
291

Climate Change and resilient to the rate and
scale of change of modern society.
Habitats in the programme area include
woodlands and scrub, hedgerows, heath,
grassland communities, farmland including
pasture, aquatic communities including
streams and open water such as reservoirs,
specialist fungi habitats such as waxcap
grasslands and vegetation of open habitats.
Management work could include
establishment of and/or widening of riparian
buffer strips which will have the added
benefit of reducing soil run-off; invasive
species control e.g. Himalayan Balsam, Giant
Hogweed and Japanese Knotweed. Habitat
management could include management
of farmland, PAWS restoration, lowland
heathland restoration and woodland
management including thinning, and
hedgerow management and even drystone
walls.
This could be as simple as creating wide
pond margins offering wet/damp marginal
habitat, management of wet grassland
for breeding and wintering waders and
wildfowl linking to providing an area of
flood containment and/or natural flood
management.
A portfolio of sites supports this bid. The
following sites are confirmed for survey:
LWS 222 Hillsborough Golf Course
(56% of LWS):
The course is constructed on former
lowland heath (UKBAP & LBAP), remnants
of which survive between the fairways,
with species such as heather, western
gorse (a UKBAP species) and scattered
birch. Protected species also have a strong
presence. Scrub also present.
• LBAP: Unimproved grassland, lowland
heathland
Mainly deciduous woodland, dominated by
oak, on a steep south-facing slope. Fields
to the east are unimproved grassland with
scattered hawthorn and western gorse
scrub. Western gorse scrub (UKBAP) is
developing in the unimproved field.
• LBAP: Unimproved grassland
• UKBAP: Upland oak woodland
Non – LWS Bowcroft Cemetery
This small but “ancient Quaker burial
ground” contains the graves of members
of the Shaw family of nearby “Hill” and
“Brookside” farms. There is a plaque and
squeezer stile, beyond which is a wellmaintained
grove of trees and a path
leading down to the burial site. Here there
are a small number of 18th century graves
all of which are nicely preserved. The
headstones lie flat on the ground and some
are cracked but the inscriptions are clearly
legible. (Quakers were not allowed to be
buried in the parish graveyard so this is how
Bowcroft came into existence. The land for
the burial ground was purchased in 1675 by
George and William Shaw). This lonely site is
often described as ‘wind swept’. Maintained
by Bradfield Parish Council.
LWS 224 Haggstones (68% of LWS)
The site features a disused quarry,
surrounded by secondary woodland
growing on quarry spoil. Beneath the trees
there are small areas of acid grassland/heath
mosaic (a priority habitat in the UKBAP).
The quarry has been partially infilled by
tipping, then landscaped and seeded with
wildflowers (including musk mallow, field
scabious and cowslip). The site is used by
mammals that are protected by legislation.
• UK & LBAP: Lowland heathland
• UKBAP: Lowland dry acid grassland
• UKBAP: Lowland heathland
• LWS 032 Yew Trees Wood:
292 SLLP LCAP Projects

LWS 004 Redmires Conduit (59% of LWS):
This linear feature runs west to east for 2km,
from Soughley Lane to Blackbrook Road.
The conduit comprises a narrow, steepsided
intermittently flowing channel, with a
narrow strip of vegetation on either side. This
includes heathland species (heather, bilberry,
cowberry & heath bedstraw), wet grassland
species (lesser spearwort & bog stitchwort),
tall ruderals and the occasional shrub.
A well-used public footpath runs parallel to
the channel.
• UK & LBAP: Water course (‘priority’ habitat)
LWS 115 Deer Park Road Community Wildlife
Area
This site consists of two blocks of seminatural
vegetation (relict farmland) which
form an island within the surrounding
housing.
Habitats include semi improved grassland,
planted woodland, rank grassland, tall herbs,
scrub, scattered semi-mature trees and a wet
flush. Protected mammal species use the
site.
LWS 038 More Hall Reservoir
The site includes the reservoir, outlet
channels, ponds (former water treatment
works), coniferous plantations and relict
ancient woodland. Other habitats include
unimproved & acid grassland and small areas
of heath. LRDB species occur, including great
crested grebe, crossbill, red and roe deer and
protected mammals (including bats).
• LBAP: Ancient woodland, unimproved
grassland, ponds & standing water, rivers &
running water.
• UKBAP: Lowland dry acid grassland,
Ancient & / or species rich hedgerow.
LWS 014 Middle Rivelin Valley
Dominated by the River Rivelin, woodland
and old mill ponds are present in this
section of the valley. They show the various
transitional stages between open water
and carr woodland. AWI species are present
throughout, including climbing corydalis (A
LRDB species).
Some of the open ponds are stocked and
fished. This forms an important corridor
between the Peak Park and the urban
fringes of Sheffield.
• LBAP: Ancient woodland, ponds &
standing water, rivers & running water.
• UKBAP: Wet woodland.
LWS 016 Hagg Wood
A section of the site (below the allotments
off Back Lane) is dominated by heather and
bilberry. The bulk of the site is comprised
of former allotments that have been
abandoned or planted up.
Bird species such as the green woodpecker
hold territories in the Hagg Wood area. The
former allotment site (below Long Lane) is
very diverse for fungi. Dead wood is plentiful
in this section.
• LBAP: Upland heathland
LWS 017 Roscoe Plantation
The silted mill pond (with developing willow
& alder carr), old plantation woodland
(possibly formed part of the larger ancient
Stannington Wood), patches of acid
grassland (on the dry slopes with bilberry
and heath bedstraw) and overgrown
allotments form the diversity of this site.
Ancient Woodland Indicator species are
present on site. The River Rivelin flows
along the southern boundary. Evidence of
quarrying can be found in the eastern half.
• LBAP: Ancient woodland, rivers & running
water.
SLLP LCAP Projects
293

LWS 018 Clough Fields (40% of LWS)
The site has a variety of habitats which
include ancient woodland, wet woodland,
grassland, heath / grassland mosaic
(including Lowland heath), unimproved
acidic and neutral grasslands and a
developing woodland (former allotments)
Large solitary trees are present along the
field boundaries and a substantial wet flush
area is within the LWS. Declining woodland
birds such as blackcap and song thrush are
present, and the site is used by brown hare
and other protected mammals.
• LBAP: Ancient woodland, neutral
grassland, acid grassland.
• UKBAP: Lowland heath, wet woodland
What species/habitats could benefit?
The wooded valleys, most of which are LWSs,
hold a wealth of wildflowers associated with
ancient woodland. The valleys are home to
many species of birds, including scarce and
declining species such as willow tit, spotted
flycatcher and lesser spotted flycatcher.
Carefully planned management could help
create more habitats for these birds.
Birds found along the watercourses include
dipper and grey wagtail, plus a few pairs
of kingfishers. The former millponds hold
breeding populations of frogs, toads and
newts. The reservoirs provide habitats for
wildfowl, both breeding and over-wintering.
A few pairs on common sandpiper nest
along their banks.
The bilberry-rich areas of heathland support
green hairstreaks and other specialist
invertebrates. The wooded valleys hold a few
populations of purple hairstreaks and whiteletter
hairstreak; both species are probably
under-recorded.
The value of the intervening farmland
The majority of the land between the LWSs
is open farmland. It comprises a mixture of:
• permanent pasture grazed by sheep,
cattle and horses;
• improved grassland and grass leys,
harvested for silage;
• arable land, sown with crops such as
cereals and oil-seed rape.
Although much of the grassland has been
subject to agricultural improvement, there
remnants of unimproved pasture and
traditional hay meadow.
The intervening farmland supports small
breeding populations of ground-nesting
birds, including skylark, lapwing, curlew,
snipe and grey partridge. Golden plovers use
some areas of farmland for feeding, resting
and roosting on the way to and from their
breeding grounds on the South Pennine
Moors.
The linnet nests in areas of scrubby
heathland, but spends much of its time
foraging on farmland. Birds associated with
the moorland fringe, such as such merlin
and twite, may also visit farmland in search
of food. The open fields and woodland
edges are home to the brown hare, a
widespread but seldom seen species. Barn
owls are occasionally seen hunting over the
field margins and areas of rough pasture.
The field margins and roadside verges hold
small populations of the wall brown and
other butterflies. The small heath butterfly
occurs sporadically in the remaining areas of
unimproved acidic grassland.
With sensitive management, more areas of
farmland could be made suitable for these
species.
Species and habitats that could benefit
from this project include species and
habitats designated under S41 Natural
294 SLLP LCAP Projects

Environment and Rural Communities
Act 2006, LBAP and UK BAP species and
habitats, protected species, and locally
declining species and habitats.
Water Vole
The status of Water vole in the Sheffield area
is becoming critical. Lack of management
is putting serious pressure on the few
remaining populations, the largest and most
stable of these being the population in the
upper Redmires conduit.
White clawed crayfish
The protection and stabilisation of these
remnant populations must be further
enhanced to ensure they are not lost from
the Sheffield area.
Bats
The SLLP area has numerous areas ideally
suited for bats. Populations could be assisted
through identifying areas with large bat
populations and concentrating on a number
of habitat improvements in these areas.
Butterflies
There are numerous rare butterfly species
in the SLLP area that could benefit from
the creation of wildflower meadows or
increasing larval host plant populations. E.g.
the Wall and the White-letter Hairstreak.
Reptiles
The SLLP area is home to a number of reptile
species including Adder, Grass Snake and
Common Lizard. These would benefit from
the creation of Hibernacula and basking
points, possibly integrated into dry stone
wall works.
Otter
The return of Otters to the Don is a fairly
recent development. The SLLP could
assist Otter in their movement up the Don
through the creation of artificial holts in
riverbanks.
Salmon
The recent return of salmon to the Don as a
result of improvements in water quality is a
major ecological achievement. The habitat
could be further enhanced through the
creation of spawning banks.
Wax cap grasslands
There are numerous unimproved grassland
sites in the SLLP area that are home
to nationally rare fungi. The sensitive
management of these sites is essential to
maintain these fungal communities.
Sundews
There are numerous sites in the SLLP that
are home to these rare carnivorous plants.
Developing management plans and working
to conserve this rare bog plant would also
help reduce flooding
Dragonflies
There are numerous upland dragonfly
species that are declining nationally. These
would benefit from habitat management
and pond creation.
Amphibians
All amphibian species are experiencing a
global decline. Local amphibian species can
be helped through the creation of new or
restored breeding habitat. Breeding ponds
can also form part of upland flood defences.
Priority habitats that could benefit from the
project include:
• Heather Moorland
• Sphagnum bog
• Upland acid Oak Woodland
• Ancient woodland
• Wet flush
• Heath and acid grassland mosaic
• Cotton Grass
• Hedgerows
• Dry stone walls (locally important)
• Running and standing water
SLLP LCAP Projects
295

Permissions
The Defra guidance acknowledges the
difficulties in gaining site access and getting
information from private owners.
Permission has been given to carry out
habitat surveys by the various landowners
. Permission in principle has been granted
to carry out habitat management.
Implementation is subject to additional
agreement. As a large landholder there
is sufficient scope within the portfolio
of sites to facilitate management works
within budget for our own landholdings.
However, through our discussions it is
clear there is a high degree of confidence
from participating site owners agreeing to
actions to bring their site(s) under positive
conservation management.
Any management works will be maintained
for 10 years, which we as a partnership,
commit to do.
Subject to permissions, this will be
supplemented by in-kind contribution of
re-surveys of LWSs in the SLLP area between
2019 and 2022 as part of our programmed
work on a minimum of 12 no. of sites.
Reference will be made to Sheffield
Biological Records Centre, Barnsley
Biological Records Centre, Peak Park
National Park data along with data from
independent organisations to inform
conservation action. We will work towards
a data sharing agreement with the Peak
District National Park Authority to facilitate
biological data exchange. This data will be
used to inform management works.
Funding summary
Year 2019/20
LWS 222 Hillsborough Golf Course:
Costs
LWS survey
Surveyor costs £180 per day + 4% pay
increase = £187
Survey 1 day x 2 surveyors; Write up 3.5 days
x 1 surveyor = £1029
Management brief & landowner liaison
2 days = £374
LWS 032 Yew Trees Wood:
Costs
LWS survey
Surveyor costs £180 per day + 4% pay
increase =£187
Survey 1 day x 2 surveyors; Write up 3.5 days
x 1 surveyor = £1030
Management brief & landowner liaison
2 days = £374
Non – LWS
Bowcroft Cemetery
Costs
LWS survey
Surveyor costs £180 per day+ 4% pay
increase = £187
Survey 0.5 day x 2 surveyors; Write up 2 days
x 1 surveyor = £561
Management brief & landowner liaison
2 days = £374
LWS 224 Haggstones
Costs
LWS survey
Surveyor costs £180.33 per day+ 4% pay
increase = £187
Survey 1 day x 2 surveyors; Write up 3 days x
1 surveyor = £935
Management brief & landowner liaison
2 days = £374
296 SLLP LCAP Projects

Year 2020/21
LWS 004 Redmires Conduit:
Costs
LWS survey
Surveyor costs £180 per day+ 6% pay
increase = £191
Survey 0.5 day x 2 surveyors; Write up 2 days
x 1 surveyor = £573
Management brief & landowner liaison
4 days = £764
LWS 115 Deer Park Road Community
Wildlife Area
Costs
LWS survey
Surveyor costs £180.33 per day+ 6% pay
increase = £191
Survey 0.5 day x 2 surveyors; Write up 2 days
x 1 surveyor = £573
Management brief & landowner liaison
3 days = £573
LWS 038 More Hall Reservoir
Costs
LWS survey
Surveyor costs £180.33 per day+ 6% pay
increase =£191
Survey 1 day x 2 surveyors; Write up 3.5 days
x 1 surveyor = £1051
Management brief & landowner liaison
4 days = £764
Year 2021/22
LWS 014 Middle Rivelin Valley
Costs
LWS survey
Surveyor costs £180 per day+ 8% pay
increase = £194
Survey 2 day x 2 surveyors; Write up 4 days x
1 surveyor = £1552
Management brief & landowner liaison
5 days = £970
LWS 016 Hagg Wood
Costs
LWS survey
Surveyor costs £180.33 per day+ 8% pay
increase = £194
Survey 1.5 day x 2 surveyors; Write up 3.5
days x 1 surveyor = £1261
Management brief & landowner liaison
3 days = £582
LWS 017 Roscoe Plantation
Costs
LWS survey
Surveyor costs £180 per day+ 8% pay
increase = £194
Survey 1.5 day x 2 surveyors; Write up 3.5
days x 1 surveyor = £1261
Management brief & landowner liaison
3 days = £582
LWS 018 Clough Fields
Costs
LWS survey
Surveyor costs £180 per day+ 8% pay
increase = £194
Survey 1.5 day x 2 surveyors; Write up 3.5
days x 1 surveyor = £1261
Management brief & landowner liaison
4 days = £776
Additional Surveys
Predicated on the findings of the above
surveys and management proposals.
Outputs
Number of sites in positive conservation
management will have risen to 46.25% (148
out of 320) .
11 Local Wildlife Surveys completed.
Protected species surveys
Selective Phase1 survey and mapping of
intervening land
SLLP LCAP Projects
297

Conservation land management
4 sites in positive conservation
management, including creation of 1 new
Local Wildlife Site. 7 sites retaining their
existing positive conservation management
status . Comprising a total area of
approximately 148.23 Ha.
Outcomes
Greater knowledge of habitats and species,
their distribution and how they use the SLLP
area available to the community, partners,
conservation organisations, and landowners
to inform future management.
Better ecological condition and
management to maintain viable populations
and functioning ecological communities
across 11 sites and the surrounding area.
In conjunction with other projects a
significant contribution towards halting
and reversing biodiversity loss across the
Lakeland Landscape Partnership area and
beyond.
Contribution to the quality of life and
the well-being of the community, with
many sites providing opportunities for
the enjoyment of nature, research and
education.
Who will be doing the work
Surveys will be carried out by Casual
ecology workers working irregular hours
as and when required, with more detailed
surveys targeting specialist wildlife groups
e.g. surveys for bats or breeding birds by
casual ecology staff, or specialists from the
private, charity or academic sectors where
we do not have the skills ‘in-house’.
Contractors, specialists (from the private or
charity sector), will be employed to deliver a
range of habitat management and creation
projects.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
In the long term the project will pave the
way to secure the future of the landscape,
its wildlife and people. The outcomes
will be sustained through Sheffield City
Council’s rolling programme of site survey,
and work developed through partnerships
and relationships established through this
project and the wider programme.
Canyard’s Hill
Canyards Hill is not a Local Wildlife Site,
however it is unique in the SLLP programme
as being the only geological interpretation
project. As it is site specific the WS team
have agreed to manage the project.
Canyards Hills is a 64.1 hectare (158.4 acre)
biological and geological SSSI in South
Yorkshire. The site was notified in 1990.
This site possesses the most impressive
examples in England and Wales of ‘ridgeand-trough’
or ‘tumbled ground.’ Beneath a
10 m high cliff, the north-facing valley side
above Broomhead Reservoir is a chaotic
mass of sub-parallel ridges, separated by
intervening narrow areas of marshy ground.
The site is formed in Upper Carboniferous
Millstone Grit and shows the most extreme
form and best example of ‘tumbled ground’,
with innumerable small Millstone Grit blocks
(controlled by jointing) taking up a large
landslip. (Wikipedia).
This project will review the existing
information available and create a PDF and
website page content to interpret the site
for non-specialists.
We will engage a Geomorphology expert
to interpret describe the site in straight
forward words and create a number of
images to illustrate how it came about.
298 SLLP LCAP Projects

Supporting documents
Local Sites in Positive Conservation
Management in England Local sites
(i.e. sites designated locally for their
substantive nature conservation importance
for wildlife or geological importance).
These sites are being managed so as
to preserve their nature conservation
interest (i.e. are in “positive conservation
management”). https://data.gov.uk/dataset/
nature-conservation-local-sites-in-positiveconservation-management-in-england
These official statistics give information
on Local Sites designated locally for their
nature conservation importance (either
for wildlife or geology) which are being
managed so as to conserve their nature
conservation interest. Sheffield MBC has
reported consistently since 2008 on Local
Sites in Positive Conservation Management
and has increased the percentage. However,
it is proving more and more difficult to bring
additional sites into positive conservation
management, particularly those that are in
private ownership.
Sheffield City Council is familiar with
working on large scale partnership projects
and has successfully delivered as a key
partner the Dark Peak Nature Improvement
Area Project. Burbage NIA - National
“Nature Improvement Area” project for the
Burbage Valley in the Peak District National
Park.
Partners: National Trust, RSPB, Eastern
Moors, Peak Park
http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/darkpeak-nia-0
Sheffield City Council Ecology Unit
carried out the Desk-top study to gather
comprehensive baseline data, National
Vegetation Classification and specialist
wildlife surveys, and made Conservation
Proposals which were adopted and carried
out a Watching Brief. Co-wrote the Forestry
Ecological Impact Assessment.
Sheffield General Cemetery HLF Round 1
Project –
SCC secured HLF Development funding
for Sheffield General Cemetery, a Grade II*
registered Park & Garden in central Sheffield
to develop proposal to conserve the site and
improve access for the local community.
The project has involved developing
masterplan proposals for the conservation
of the built and natural heritage, engage
with target audiences to understand
needs and developing a range activities to
make the heritage more accessible. The
development project is nearing completion
and will submit a Round 2 application
in February 2018. Sheffield City Council
Ecology Unit carried out the Desk-top study
to gather comprehensive baseline data,
Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, with
Conservation Proposals and Watching Brief.
Canyard’s Hill
Canyard’s Hill Notification 1990
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• S&RWT
• Yorkshire Water
• Sheffield City Council
• Contractors (to be appointed
subsequently)
The strong partnerships established through
the programme between the public sector,
conservationists, land managers and
business will engender positive conservation
outcomes for wildlife and people.
Other organisations benefitting or
taking part in your project or key target
audience
• Private land owners – written agreement
from Mr John Illingworth, to survey
and in principle to carry out habitat
management on part of Hillsborough
Golf Course Local Wildlife Site 222. Verbal
SLLP LCAP Projects
299

agreement to survey and in principle
to carry out habitat management on
Bowcroft Cemetery.
• Peak DNPA – in discussion to set up joint
data sharing agreement.
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
The Local Sites series have a significant role
to play in supporting wildlife by providing
refuges for habitats such as native clough
woodland, open and running water, and
grasslands for the benefit of target species
such as curlew and lapwing. Furthermore
they buffer, connect or otherwise contribute
to a landscape-scale ecological network.
Increasing our knowledge through survey
and desk-top study of species and habitats
and their distribution will enable better
conservation management and lead to a
greater understanding of the landscape and
how it functions. This in turn will help us
towards halting and reversing biodiversity
loss across the Lakeland Landscape
Partnership area and beyond.
Our work will also enhance the capacity
of the natural environment by providing
ecosystem services such as cleaner water
and crop pollination.
The project recognises that a well-managed
and documented Local Sites series and
wider countryside contributes to the quality
of life and the well-being of the community,
with many sites and areas providing
opportunities for public enjoyment of
nature, research and education.
Site wills be managed through the
partnership in the long term as part
of Sheffield City Councils on-going
commitment to maintaining sites in positive
conservation management.
Strategic fit
Making Space for Nature: A review of
England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological
Network : The report states in relation to
LWSs ‘There are a large number of surviving
patches of important wildlife habitat
scattered across England outside of SSSIs,
for example in Local Wildlife Sites. We need
to take steps to improve the protection and
management of these remaining wildlife
habitats’. It goes on to say ‘Local Wildlife
Sites are important to future ecological
networks, because they not only provide
wildlife refuges in their own right but can
act as stepping stones and corridors to link
and protect nationally and internationally
designated sites’. On the issue of improving
the quality of current sites by better habitat
management the report acknowledges
that LWSs are often under managed, and
with reference to these and other statutory
sites, acknowledges that investment in the
management of existing wildlife habitats is
an absolute priority if England is to have an
effective ecological network.
The Report acknowledges ‘we need a
step-change in our approach to wildlife
conservation, from trying to hang on to
what we have, to one of large-scale habitat
restoration and recreation, under-pinned by
the re-establishment of ecological processes
and ecosystem services, for the benefits of
both people and wildlife.’
It goes on to say ‘This vision will only be
realised if, within the overall aims, we work
at local scales, in partnership with local
people, local authorities, the voluntary
sector, farmers, other land-managers,
statutory agencies, and other stakeholders.
Private landowners, land managers and
farmers have a crucial role to play in
delivering a more coherent and resilient
wildlife network.’
It also states ‘We propose that the
overarching aim for England’s ecological
300 SLLP LCAP Projects

network should be to deliver a natural
environment where: Compared to the
situation in 2000, biodiversity is enhanced
and the diversity, functioning and resilience
of ecosystems re-established in a network
of spaces for nature that can sustain these
levels into the future, even given continuing
environmental change and human
pressures.
We also recommend that this be
underpinned by three objectives:
To restore species and habitats appropriate
to England’s physical and geographical
context to levels that are sustainable in
a changing climate, and enhanced in
comparison with those in 2000.
To restore and secure the long-term
sustainability of the ecological and
physical processes that underpin the way
ecosystems work, thereby enhancing
the capacity of our natural environment
to provide ecosystem services such as
clean water, climate regulation and crop
pollination, as well as providing habitats
for wildlife.
To provide accessible natural
environments rich in wildlife for people
to enjoy and experience. Where LWSs are
in Council ownership we will continue to
grant public access.’
Much of the area is criss-crossed by public
rights of way and this will give people the
opportunity to see and interact with wildlife
and nature.
Sheffield’s Great Outdoors Green and Open
Space Strategy: A principal outcome of
Sheffield’s Great Outdoors Green and Open
Space Strategy is ‘An even greener Sheffield
– contributing on a regional scale to
managing climate change and conserving
biodiversity’. This project fits with the four
priorities for action:
• Minimising climate change
• Sustaining quality in our environment
• Managing for nature and biodiversity
• Making connections for people and wildlife
A key strategic outcome is ‘By 2020 -
phased improvement to target condition
for all Local Nature Sites and SSSIs
achieved through Biodiversity Action Plan
implementation. This project contributes
to the first part of this goal by targeting
positive conservation management of LWSs.
Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s
wildlife and ecosystem services
Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s
wildlife and ecosystem services states:
‘We will encourage local authorities to
take a more active and positive role in
the management of Local Sites, including
through reporting data on such sites in the
Government’s new Single Data List’.
National Planning Policy Framework:
Section 117 of the National Planning Policy
Framework states that planning authorities
should identify and map components of
the local ecological networks, including
the hierarchy of international, national and
locally designated sites of importance for
biodiversity, wildlife corridors and stepping
stones that connect them and areas
identified by local partnerships for habitat
restoration or creation. This supports
Sheffield’s work on Local Sites. Along
with Defra’s guidance there is relevance to
maintaining a suite of these sites and to
keep up the corresponding review period.
Furthermore, Section 165 of the NPPF
states that planning policies and decisions
should be based on up-to‐date information
about the natural environment and other
characteristics of the area.
Section 84. of the Defra guidance states a
review period of between five and ten years
SLLP LCAP Projects
301

is recommended. We aim to follow this
recommendation, but getting permitted
access to private sites is proving particularly
difficult.
However, designation and review is only
one part of the equation; sites need to
demonstrate that they are in positive
conservation management. Resources
to manage sites are minimal. This is an
opportunity to target management to
maximise benefit for key habitats and
species.
Local Sites Partnership: Sheffield has an
active Local Sites Partnership run in line
with Defra best practice guidance. Amongst
its roles the partnership:
• actively promotes and supports site
management;
• co-ordinate funding provision and/or
identify and promote the taking up of
funding opportunities; and;
• promotes the enhancement of sites
through buffering and increasing
connectivity.
In section 22. of the Defra Local Site
selection and management 2006 document
it states ‘The Partnership should also aim
to make the best of funding opportunities
to ensure the protection, management and
beneficial use of the site network.’ We, as
Partnership lead, are doing just that through
this project by seeking HLF funding.
Furthermore, the guidance states lottery
grants are available for voluntary and
community sector led initiatives geared to
environmental objectives which may be
relevant to Local Sites.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
wildlife refuges. These refuges
will be better managed and their
function, along with intervening land,
as connecting, stepping stone and
buffering qualities, and the support they
provide to other site networks enhanced;
this will enable a more ecologically
connected, robust and resilient
landscape.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up
natural environment for people and
wildlife: 11 sites will be better managed
as a result of this project for specific
priority habitats and species.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors: 11 sites will be better recorded
as a result of this project for specific
priority habitats and species. Subject to
permissions, this will be supplemented
by in-kind contribution of re-surveys of
LWSs in the SLLP area between 2019 and
2022 as part of our programmed work on
an additional 12 sites.
Canyard’s Hill is a most impressive
feature in the SLLP Landscape, however
it is little interpreted and people do not
recognise its interest.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after
it: A landscape for all to learn about,
value, experience and enjoy. The surveys
and management briefs will be made
available to landowners. Records
collected during the survey will be added
to the Sheffield Biological Record Centre
(SBRC) which is available to be used
freely by the public and conservation
organisations to learn about the wildlife
of the SLLP area.
1. A more connected and resilient
landscape: Non-statutory LWSs (Local
Sites) provide a series of important
302 SLLP LCAP Projects

HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
Which aspect of heritage will be better
managed
4 sites into positive conservation
management, including creation of 1 new
Local Wildlife Site, and ensure that 7 sites
retain their existing positive conservation
management status.
Which aspect of heritage will be identified
and recorded
10 LWSs will be resurveyed, 1 new site will
become a Local wildlife Site and Canyard’s
Hill is a most impressive feature in the SLLP
Landscape, however it is little interpreted
and people do not recognise its interest.
Outcomes for communities
Negative environmental impacts will
be reduced as large areas will be made
accessible for the quiet enjoyment of nature.
More people and a wider range of people
will have engaged with heritage by working
with private companies and landowners
e.g. Yorkshire Water, and Bradfield Parish
Council
Our local area/community will be a better
place to live, work and visit as Local Sites
contribute to the quality of life and the wellbeing
of the community, with many sites
providing opportunities for enjoyment of
nature, research and education.
Consents required
3rd party landowner agreements permission
to survey are in place. Permission in
principle for habitat management.
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
This project will pay for ecological woodland
survey work to inform works under the
Woodland Heart Project. Capital costs will
be covered by the Woodland Heart for
the named sites allowing concentration of
capital monies on other non-woodland sites.
This project has mutual benefits for wildlife
in the project area and beyond through
increasing our level of knowledge of
potential habitat for target species, and by
providing targeted management to benefit
species dealt with under the Back from the
brink project.
This project will benefit the ‘Creating the
buffer and stepping stones, creating new
habitats with farmers’ project by providing
refuges to link to. Both projects have
synergies in that they will both support
other site networks by the functional
linkages they provide e.g. foraging and
commuting, resting or roosting function.
There are synergies with the ‘Working with
water project’ by either seeking to improve
management of refuge sites, and the moors,
bogs, flushes, streams, reservoirs and rivers
that link them.
This project has synergies with Restoring
the lattice. Drystone walls act as habitat in
their own right or as linkages enhancing
connectivity in the landscape for species
such as small mammals, amphibians,
reptiles, nesting habitat for birds e.g.
wren, redstart, pied wagtail, and act as
hibernacula.
Overall these projects will enable a better
joined up approach to management at the
landscape scale.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
SLLP LCAP Projects
303

1. Digital landscape (i.e. using technology)
Habitats and species will be input onto
the Sheffield Biological Records Centre
database and habitats mapped using GIS.
2. Monitoring and evaluation
LWS will be surveyed, their condition
will be monitored and evaluated. See
Operational Section in Legacy and
long-term management implications
section. Positive management condition
independently verified by Local Wildlife
Sites partnership.
3. Evidencing ecosystem services
Our work will also enhance the capacity
of the natural environment by providing
ecosystem services such as flood
alleviation, cleaner water and crop
pollination, mental and physical health
benefits from access to nature.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
Biosecurity measures will be incorporated
into the project e.g. when surveying for
white-clawed crayfish take appropriate
biosecurity precautions by following
guidance such as ‘Guidance on works
affecting white-clawed crayfish’, Stephanie
Peay, June 2000, English Nature.
Location of threatened species will be kept
to 4 Figure grid references in the public
domain. Particularly vulnerable species such
as birds of prey, badgers, orchids will only
be released to appropriate organisations at
an agreed resolution. Timing of release will
be taken into account to adequately protect
the species.
Competent and appropriately qualified staff
and contractors will be utilised. Evidence
reported of qualifications and evidence
of suitability of an appropriate level of
experience in ecological survey.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
Legal agreements entered into with other
organisations or landowners to ensure
management works are completed and
maintained.
Operational
Programme of monitoring and maintenance
drawn up once management works agreed.
LWSs programme of re-survey monitored
by the Sheffield LWSs Partnership which
meets biannually. Programme of LWSs resurvey
drawn up annually and completed
by SCC Ecology Unit and submitted to
LWSs Partnership. This ensures we meet
the requirements of Single Data List 160-
00 on Improved Local Biodiversity ‘Nature
Conservation: Local Sites in Positive
Conservation Management’ reporting to
DEFRA annually, and on our SCC internal
performance target on increasing LWSs in
positive conservation management.
Strategic
A legacy of these projects and the wider
scheme will be to foster a continued
good working relationship with partner
organisations.
Partner’s Environmental Policy See
‘Growing sustainably: a bold plan for
sustainable Sheffield’
Risks
The LWSs series are a dynamic system. Over
the whole of Sheffield, the number of LWSs
could decrease if sites are de-designated
as they no longer qualify for Local Wildlife
Site status, or increase if new sites are
designated. Similarly, the LWS area could
increase or decrease if a proportion of a site
is designated or de-designated respectively.
The overall number of LWSs in positive
conservation management could also
increase or decrease. In general SCC does
304 SLLP LCAP Projects

not have any control of privately owned
sites and cannot insist on their conservation
management. This is outside the control of
this project.
In some cases (see text) we have permission
to survey a proportion of a LWS. Therefore
a LWS could reduce in size and there is
a risk that the overall area of LWSs will
decline within the SLLP area. There is also
the potential for a site to no longer meet
the LWS criteria. However, as a result of this
project we will have a more robust and
defensible LWS series. In addition where we
survey existing LWSs and intervening land
there is the potential to increase the area,
and in the latter case the number of LWSs in
the SLLP area.
In the case of this project without
appropriate management 7 LWS are at
risk of retaining positive conservation
management status. With appropriate
management 4 (and 1 new Local Wildlife
Site) will gain positive conservation
management status. It is not envisaged
that conservation management will be a
large undertaking; for example woodland
management can involve minimal or nonintervention
and be classed as positive
conservation management.
Of the 11 sites SCC own 2 sites, 5 are partially
owned by the Council,
4 are in private ownership. Of the latter,
2 are predominantly owned by Yorkshire
Water.
The 2 sites owned by SCC have permission
to survey. The SCC partially owned sites have
permission for survey only on the Councils’
area.
given for the whole of Bowcroft Cemetery
and a proportion of Hillsborough Golf
Course to be surveyed.
Yorkshire Water is a partner in the project
and are supportive.
Consent is required from the owners
to effect positive management by SCC.
However, until surveys have been completed
owners cannot guarantee their permission
to carry out conservation management,
as recommendations may not be in
accordance with the function of a particular
site.
If permission is not granted alternative
sites from the portfolio of LWSs in Council
ownership will be surveyed and positive
conservation management implemented.
Climate Change
This project will enable species to adapt
to the impacts of climate change by for
instance creating linkages and corridors.
Geographically, species are moving
northwards and spatially are moving from
lowland areas to the uplands. As the rate of
climate change increases this project will
contribute towards the provision of a series
of robust and resilient refuges through
conservation management. This will
continue to provide the right circumstances
for population increase of threatened
species, reduce risk of local extinction and
provide potential colonists of new sites. This
project promotes landscape heterogeneity
to give species the opportunity to stay
within their climate envelope, by giving
them the ability to make small scale local
movements to adapt rather than undertake
long distance dispersal.
The 2 predominantly Yorkshire Water sites
have permission for survey. Of the remaining
privately owned sites permission has been
SLLP LCAP Projects
305

Bringing Local Wildlife Sites into, and Sustaining them in Positive Conservation Management and Canyards Hill
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Staff Salary 3666 2000 2000 3666 2000 4000 3668 2000 2000
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Contractors 5000 5000 5000 6000 5000 5000
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Funding area
Publicity & promotion
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
56000.00
306 SLLP LCAP Projects

Enhancing Wildlife Trust Nature Reserves – habitat improvements
Fox Hagg and Wyming Brook, Rivelin Valley. Photo credit: Rob Miller
Lead partner
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
(SRWT)
150 word summary
This is a key project working to achieve
Outcome 2 by applying Lawtonian principles
to the landscape. As a result of changes
in land use and other pressures many
species and habitats have suffered loss
and deterioration. To reverse this we need
to enhance ecological networks including
nature reserves (core areas as termed
by Lawton), making them bigger, better
and more joined up; ultimately making
them more resilient (which will become
increasingly important in the face of climate
change). Grasslands, wet grassland, wetlands,
woodlands, heathlands and hedges will be
restored on nature reserves enhancing the
wider ecological network.
Full project description
This project will deliver the following
objectives:
• Restore wetland and wet grassland at
Agden Bog (AB) and Hammond’s Field (HF).
• Restore grassland at Carr House Meadows
(CHM).
• Install fencing to facilitate grassland and
heathland restoration at CHM and HF.
• Restore heathland at Wyming Brook/Fox
Hagg (WB/FH) (essentially one site).
• Restore woodland for woodland birds
(including pied flycatcher) and bats.
Fit to existing strategies
Good fit with SCC’s nature conservation,
woodland and green and open spaces
strategies and Sheffield’s ‘Outdoor City’
initiative as well as strong links to Sheffield’s
L BAP.
SLLP LCAP Projects
307

Description
This project will restore grassland and
wetland restoration at three nature
reserves – CHM, AB and HF. Grassland and
wetland will be restored at CHM, AB and
HF. Fencing and hedging work will take
place at CHM, AB and HF. Heathland and
woodland will be improved at WB and FH
including specific species work for woodland
birds (including pied flycatcher) and bats.
Collectively this work will restore ‘core areas’
of the ecological network improving its
resilience.
Benefits
The landscape and its ecology will benefit
through habitat restoration work and some
targeted species work i.e. it will be better
natural environment from a Lawtonian
point of view. People will benefit through
experiencing and enjoying the wildlife within
restored areas.
Outputs
• 5 ha of wetland & wet grassland restored
(AB & HF).
• 14 ha of grassland restored (CHM).
• 1700 lin m combined of hedge-laying/
hedge planting/fencing (AB, CHM & HF).
• 16 ha of heathland restoration (WB/FH).
• 70 ha of woodland restoration for
woodland birds (including pied flycatcher)
and bats (WB/FH).
Threats/opportunities
Our species and habitats are threatened
like never before, to reverse declines and
‘future-proof’ ecological networks (and the
ecosystem services they provide) we need
to act now before it’s too late. There are a
number of opportunities we can take up
here:
New nature reserves that we’ve taken on
at Hammond’s Field and Agden Bog –
opportunity to look at these with ‘fresh eyes’
and in a landscape-scale context with a
view to restoration work.
Improve grazing infrastructure on a
number of sites to ensure sustainable land
management for the long-term.
Woodland restoration in collaboration with
adjacent landowners (SCC and YW) resulting
in a strategic approach for the first time
with species and habitats set to benefit.
SRWT will manage and maintain the sites
over the long-term supported by agrienvironment
schemes where appropriate/
available.
Supporting documents
Sheffield City Council’s:
1. Nature Conservation strategy
2. Green and Open Spaces strategy
3. Woodland strategy
4. Outdoor City – theoutdoorcity.co.uk
5. Local Biodiversity Action Plan
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• Clear opportunity to join up work with
SCC and YW as neighbouring landowners.
Other organisations benefitting or
taking part in your project or key target
audience
Reserve Advisory Groups, the ‘ecology
community’ and members of the public
interested in wildlife and restored
landscapes.
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
By restoring habitats on Trust nature
reserves it improves those ‘core ecological
areas’ strengthening the ecological
connectivity of the landscape as a whole.
308 SLLP LCAP Projects

Strategic fit
The Lawton Report: (importance of
managing on a landscape scale /
connectivity / buffers/ stepping stones and
corridors)
The Paris Agreement – Climate Action
Sheffield City Council’s:
• Nature Conservation strategy
• Green and Open Spaces strategy
• Woodland strategy
• The Outdoor City – theoutdoorcity.co.uk
• Local Biodiversity Action Plan
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
Outputs for people
40 people will have developed skills, learned
about heritage, volunteered their time.
Outcomes for communities
your local area/community will be a better
place to live, work and visit Three local
nature reserves improved for people to visit
(Wyming Brook, Fox Hagg and Carr House
Meadows – Agden and Hammond’s do not
lend themselves to visiting).
Consents required
None
Photographs (overleaf)
(All credited to Rob Miller)
1. A more connected and resilient
landscape: Restored habitats result in
a more resilient landscape/ecological
network.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife:
Better – by restoring habitats on Trust
nature reserves it improves those ‘core
areas’ strengthening the ecological
network as a whole.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
Which aspect of heritage will be better
managed and in better condition: 5 nature
reserves better managed. 105 ha of habitats
in better condition will support more
wildlife and result in a stronger ecological
network.
SLLP LCAP Projects
309

Agden Bog Nature Reserve (purple moor
grass & rush pasture):
Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve (purple
moor grass & rush pasture):
Carr House Meadows Nature Reserve
(lowland meadow):
Wyming Brook Nature Reserve (lowland
heathland):
Fox Hagg Nature Reserve (lowland heathland):
310 SLLP LCAP Projects

Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
Links to woodland heart, dry stone walling
project, access to key sites project, back
from the brink species project, gateways
to the landscape project, countryside
volunteer’s project, learning in the
landscape project and art in the landscape
project.
This project will offer an opportunity for a
trainee from the traineeship to learn about
habitat creation, we will devise one ‘miniproject’
per year that a trainee can survey,
plan, cost and deliver.
The Woodland Heart project will occur
on neighbouring sites, we will be able
coordinate management of the woodland
and woodland fringe.
The South Yorkshire Bat Group project
will use our sites to monitor baseline and,
hopefully, improve bat populations across
our reserves.
Dry stone walling project – the nature
reserves will be used for much of the
training and for running events where
trainees can develop leadership and
planning skills.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
1. Priority species recovery – habitat
restoration work on the nature reserves
will contribute towards species recovery.
2. Evidencing ecosystem services – will
enhance/support ecosystem services,
particularly supporting e.g. pollination,
provisioning e.g. water and regulating e.g.
carbon sequestration.
3. Community engagement – will engage
local people through volunteer work days,
Reserve Advisory Groups and other events
and activities.
4. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters – through community
events and SRWT publicity including
website, Kingfisher, social media and
press releases.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
Follow woodland/heathland/wetland
biosecurity procedures and some sensitive
species information.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
None required
Operational
The nature reserves will continue to be
managed by SRWT under long-term lease
arrangements or ownership.
Strategic
Our legacy will be an enhanced ecological
network (bigger, better and more joined
up); ultimately making it more resilient to
climate change and other pressures.
Climate Change
Adaptation – restore core areas allowing
species to flow through the ecological
network.
Resilience - management interventions to
allow for climate change e.g. making bogs
more resilient to drought.
SLLP LCAP Projects
311

Enhancing Wildlife Trust Nature Reserves – habitat improvements
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
The Project (Capital Costs)
Site Officer PPE 100 100 50
Tools 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411 411
Machinery
Plant hire 2400 2400
Materials 247 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 744 740 740 745
Fuel 75 75 28 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23
Contractors 9700 4200 5400 2300 4200 6900 3600 4200 3000 300 1200
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer PPE 125 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 63
175 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 50
Volunteer support budget 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135 135
Non recoverable VAT 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Funding area
Publicity and promotion 480 480 480
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
130606
312 SLLP LCAP Projects

Midhope Nature Reserve
Midhope Reservoir. One of the three reservoirs in the ‘Langsett’ complex and
of 14 Yorkshire Water reservoirs present in the Sheffield Lakelands.
Lead partner
Yorkshire Water
150 word summary
As the Sheffield Lakelands continue to grow
in popularity and the reservoirs remain the
‘starting point’ for so much activity Midhope
Reservoir remains quietest of the ‘Langsett
Complex’, in the north.
Yorkshire Water has identified Midhope
as the destination for ‘quiet enjoyment of
nature’ within the three reservoir complex,
Midhope, Langsett and Underbank. The
intention is to create a home for osprey
and goshawk with low key access and
interpretation and undertake a significant
habitat creation project as a flagship nature
conservation element of the SLLP.
This project will develop the habitats and
access at Midhope to incorporate it as
part of the leisure resources of the area.
By improving access and including it in a
circular ‘nature route’ we will encourage
people to enjoy the heritage of the area.
However, we will also manage access and
habitats in order to create a true haven for
wildlife, isolating key stands of forestry /
woodland and most of the water edge from
disturbance, facilitating our more sensitive
species, those that cannot tolerate the ever
increasing numbers of countryside visitors.
Full project description
Commitment from Yorkshire Water
“Undertaking management on YW owned
land in the Little Don area (near and
including Langsett, Midhope, Underbank
reservoirs) to bring about the maximum
potential these locations have to offer for
recreation, visitor engagement, biodiversity,
landscape and amenity. Owned primarily
for the collection and protection of raw
water management these lands can
deliver even more benefit to society. The
management in these lands for these
outcomes is restricted through cost and
takes the enhancement above and beyond
that required by the water company. It will
also require strategic partnership working
to deliver the maximum benefits envisaged.
SLLP LCAP Projects
313

Through a supported program of activity
and management these lands could be
enhanced, delivering new opportunities and
societal benefits, contributing to the health
and wellbeing of those which live locally
and visit as well as support the economy of
local business and community.”
The management of these lands (woods,
meadows, moors, waters) for societal
benefit will also contribute significantly to
the landscape and opportunities in the
SLLP area enabling visitors to get close
to nature and the outdoor environment.
Through the implementation of a structured
management plan that goes beyond the
current provision, new opportunities will
be developed for recreation, community
engagement, new outdoor activities
created, enhancement of biodiversity, visitor
engagement, support local economy, realise
the site potential as a destination of choice.
As part of this ‘wider’ strategic approach,
of which the SLLP Landscape Conservation
Access Plan can be considered one of the
earliest steps, Midhope will be developed as
a nature reserve. The following work will be
undertaken:
Year 1
Routine observation visits
We will visit Midhope once a month during
busier times of the week (weekend days).
This work will be undertaken to; review
permitted and non-permitted user pressure,
record evidence of anti-social behaviour
and undertake non-structured assessment
of the site. This information, together with
the findings of the ‘SLLP species work’
will help define how we approach habitat
management prescriptions and access
provision. This work will be coordinated
with the Supporting Species project to help
determine suitability, location and design
habitat for goshawk and osprey.
£2,500
Year 2
Construction, Development Phase Plan
Undertake final consultation between
partners and create fully costed and
‘contracted’ habitat and construction phase
plan. To consist of:
Access
Promoted walking route design with
starting points at Langsett cp, Underbank
cp or Midhopestones. The route will include
PRoWs, existing YW permissive routes, quiet
lanes and new permissive access through
Midhope. Provisionally the ‘new’ route is
expected to run from the PRoW entrance
on Mortimer Road (grid ref 235 986) inside
the YW wall along Gill Road to Shaw Brook
(grid ref 221 993). At this point the permissive
route will include a single (dead end)
viewing area over the reservoir.
The route will be ‘lightly’ waymarked
and as accessible as possible, taking into
account that it may be necessary to exclude
mountain and motor bikes.
Create suitable low-key interpretation on
site, recognising supporters and partners.
Habitat creation
Develop a targeted plan in line with the
recommendations of the ‘Woodland
Heart’ report and the SRWT ‘Phase 1 plus
recommendations’ and taking account of
the species proposals and year one site
observations, design and contract the
following works.
To the west of the YW holdings is a dense
and difficult to access area of conifer and
to the north east is a steep forested slope.
These will be developed to become the core
nature area. Two areas left as very dense
conifer with the ground conditions and
planting around them managed to make
access particularly difficult. Within the core
areas habitat work and artificial support will
be undertaken for osprey and goshawk.
314 SLLP LCAP Projects

Woodland succession
With the exception of the ‘core nature
area’ move existing conifer plantation
from ‘commercial’ plantation toward
‘conservation forestry, with the objective
of increasing biodiversity and resilience
throughout the site. Include habitat design
to facilitate an ongoing management
regime of a percentage of woodland for
‘low commercial’ / community woodland
management in order to create a small
‘woodland income’ to help underwrite
future management. Resources from
timber extraction will be reinvested into the
development of the Midhope nature reserve.
Grassland / lowland heath restoration.
Undertake capital works, such as scrub
control, to remove existing old grassland
and lowland heath communities. Erect
fencing and gateways to facilitate grazing
to maintain habitats as part of long term
management prescriptions. Resources will
only be expended on habitat creation where
grazing access can be readily facilitated.
Wetland creation
Both during woodland management,
scrub control and as specific interventions
improve existing ponds and wet areas
for wildlife and create new ponds where
appropriate, Wetland creation will create
a network of linked habitats grading from
alder carr to open water. This element will
also consider any opportunities for Natural
Flood management and benefits to raw
water quality.
Invasive species control
Undertake a programme of rhododendron
cutting and chipping. Followed by specialist
contract herbicide treatments in line with
Yorkshire Water requirements. Clear garden
escape/dumped species where their spread
has been identified as a risk to other species.
Species specific facilitation
During habitat management and creation
projects include the construction / erection
of species specific refuges and/or nesting
facilities. This may include an osprey
platform and will include: bat and bird
boxes (various) and reptile hibernaculum.
Nature Reserve action
During access development, and
incorporated within habitat creation
projects, particularly wetland creation,
include the creation of solid and ‘real’
barriers to access to areas of Midhope
(current expectation is the far west
grid ref 220 995). Undertake habitat
management work if required but look to
retain a non-intervention section of the site
where neither habitat management nor
unauthorised access will occur. This will
create a true nature reserve where we (SLLP)
would monitor for disturbance intolerant
species.
Reservoir protection
The Construction, Development Phase
Plan will be created in consultation with
Yorkshire Water with the full understanding
that all works must be planned in such
a way as to not negatively impact the
reservoir itself. This includes a presumption
against working directly on or adjacent
to the reservoir and not using chemicals
without following YW safe systems.
Permissions
Planning Permission. The vast majority of
this work will sit within the existing (agreed)
forestry design plans, additional planning
issues will be managed by Sheffield City
Council.
SLLP LCAP Projects
315

Vision for Midhope
Management plan
Create a fully costed ten year habitat and
access management plan to commence
from the end of the current LCAP 2024.
£7,500
Year 3 & 4
Deliver contracted and partnership works
in line with the Construction, Development
Phase Plan, estimated cost spread:
£50,000 Access and interpretation
£150,000 Habitat creation (+net income
from timber sales)
£10,000 initial management facilitation and
events.
YW have EU journal framework contractors,
the appointment of such should meet Y&H
HLF procurement procedures (confirm with
HLF) therefore the majority of capital works
will be awarded under that framework.
Additional capital works, mostly of a minor
nature, will be carried out by partner
organisations SVP or Wildscapes:
Wildscapes will not be ‘paying’ existing staff
salaries from the budgets identified from
projects but will engage a ‘casual’ landscape
team at cost price.
Ecology and management planning
support will be delivered by the community
ecologist. (£7500)
Supporting documents
1. Midhope Reservoir Phase 1 survey and
recommendations
2. Midhope Historic Woodland Report
3. Yorkshire Water (Masterplan) everyone is
invited
4. Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
316 SLLP LCAP Projects

5. The Woodland Heart research project
6. Yorkshire Water Issues Paper
7. Customer Engagement, Insight and
Service June 2015
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
• Wildscapes Ecology Report
• Wildscapes Landteam
• Steel Valley Project
• YW contracted partner
Other organisations benefitting or
taking part in your project or key target
audience
It is likely that this project will dovetail into
other supporting programmes and partners
eg PDNPA ranger and visitor services,
Forest Schools, Sheffield ‘outdoor city’,
YW tenants, sports and recreation groups
eg Royal Lifesaving Society, British Canoe,
British Triathlon, and health and wellbeing
access programs targeted at inclusive
groups, and underrepresented visitors to the
countryside.
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
The Midhope Nature Reserve project
is an exemplar within SLLP it actively
works toward creating a more natural
environment for people to enjoy, specifically
demonstrating a balance between nature
conservation and the quiet enjoyment of
nature, together with fixing this within a
wider ‘masterplan’ which embraces other
uses for the landscape.
Strategic fit
The Lawton Report – (importance
of managing on a landscape scale /
connectivity / buffers/ stepping stones and
corridors)
Sheffield City Council’s:
• Nature Conservation strategy
• Green and Open Spaces strategy
• Woodland strategy
• The Outdoor City – theoutdoorcity.co.uk
• Local Biodiversity Action Plan
Multi Capitals assessment at Little Don (YW
2018): Recognises Midhope as a place for
quiet enjoyment of wildlife.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
1. A more connected and resilient
landscape: The Midhope project aims to
create a resilient nature reserve with a
strong emphasis on creating a preserve
area, suitable for those species which
tolerate disturbance the least.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife: An
exemplar habitat creation/development
project looking to include people and
wildlife.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors: We have undertaken an extended
phase 1 habitat survey, this will be used to
create informative interpretation.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after
it – a landscape for all to learn about,
value, experience and enjoy: A significant
outcome to our work at Midhope will
be the demonstration that sites can be
developed for people to enjoy but can
also include suitable areas where that
enjoyment does not negatively impact
intolerant species.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
SLLP LCAP Projects
317

Outputs for heritage
Which aspect of heritage will be better
managed, in better condition, identified and
recorded: 46 hectares (not including the
reservoir) will be better managed for wildlife
there will be surveys and management
plans put in plac.
Outcomes for communities
Our local area/community will be a better
place to live, work and visit through the
creation of a ‘walking’ route which clearly
puts nature first will increase people
sympathy for the requirements of wildlife
and highlight the need for comprehensive
plans for countryside management.
(Contains OS Data Crown Copyright)
The Midhope project sits within the wider
Woodland Heart project as a separate but
complimentary project.
§§
Consents required
None
Photographs
Langsett
Midhope
Underbank
Reserv
The (Contains Langsett Complex OS Data Strategy: Crown Copyright)
Reservoi
While we cannot say ‘build it and they will
come’ we can say that there is suitable
breeding and feeding sites for osprey in and
around the Lakelands and that ‘if we build it
they may come!”
• Langsett: Visit, enjoy, family, cycling, riding etc.
• Underbank: Visit, outward bound, watersport, exciting.
• Midhope: Visit, quiet enjoyment of the countryside.
The Langsett Complex Strategy:
• Langsett: Visit, enjoy, family, cycling, riding
etc.
• Underbank: Visit, outward bound,
watersport, exciting.
• Midhope: Visit, quiet enjoyment of the
countryside.
There should be goshawk, the creation of a
refuge at Midhope will form one of the key
places Sheffield Lakeland will assure are
suitable for this enigmatic species.
318 SLLP LCAP Projects
(Contains OS Data Crown Copyright)
The Midhope project sits within the wider Woodland Heart project as a separate but complimentary

Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
Supporting Species
This project will form the bedrock for our
work in support of goshawk and osprey.
Platforms with cameras will be erected for
the osprey while the creation of a properly
isolated habitat of dense forestry bounded
by wet areas and difficult terrain will result
in an undisturbed area only viewable from
the other side of the reservoir.
Woodland Heart
Midhope Nature Reserve will be
predominantly a woodland habitat meeting
the resilience and conservation objectives
of the woodland heart project. In addition
the future woodland management aims
will be toward creating a local, financially,
sustainable woodland management project.
Gateways and Access
This project will contribute directly toward
the gateway and access project as the
Langsett Complex are a gateway and there
will be increased access.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
1. Priority species recovery
Midhope will be a target habitat and
access management project with
Goshawk and Osprey as key species.
2. Digital landscape (i.e. using technology)
We will look to include remote camera
operation in the goshawk project.
3. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters.
Many of the outputs and outcomes of the
HLF Landscape Partnership proposals are
quite dispersed. Here we are creating a
flagship nature reserve.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
Framework contractors and partners will
follow YW biosecurity requirements.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
Not required as this is a partner site.
Operational
We will be creating a ten year (costed)
management plan as part of this project.
Partners are expected under the SLLP
Delivery Agreement to conform to these plan.
Strategic
For YW and SRWT and the wider partnership
this is a strategic step toward closer working
in the Sheffield Lakelands and beyond, it
includes a model where local environmental
NGOs (SRWT and SVP) can work directly
with YW through a partnership approach.
Partner’s Environmental Policy
Protecting Yorkshire’s environment is at
the core of our day-to-day business, from
supplying our customers with a reliable
source of clean water, to treating waste
water and returning it safely back to our
rivers and coasts. All of this must be done
against a backdrop of significant economic,
social and environmental change, and an
evolving regulatory framework.
Our leadership in environmental
management is recognised nationally and
we are proud to have again achieved a
Platinum performance in the Business in
Community Environment Index 2016, as well
as holding the Carbon Trust Standard for
carbon reduction since 2013.
SLLP LCAP Projects
319

Risks
Insufficient budget for all practical works.
This is a large project requiring significant
time and resources during the planning
stages in order to ensure capital budgets are
properly aligned to outcomes, as such we
will refine and cost the project in the first
two years of delivery.
YW fail to receive a budget through the AMP
program. This remains the responsibility of
Yorkshire Water and will need to be agreed
by OFWAT.
Local planning authority fails to give
Planning Consent to any development
proposals that are required. The vast
majority of this work will sit within the
existing (agreed) forestry design plans,
additional planning issues will be managed
by Sheffield City Council.
Natural England (Adjacent SSSI) and
Forestry Commission approval any
development proposals are required. This
will be gained in 2019.
Climate Change Resilience – comes from
Adaptation, for instance species range
expands northward.
We will be diversifying species range within
the woodland / forestry habitat creation
projects in line with the Woodland Heart
project. In addition will set aside a ‘preserve’
to support sensitive species.
320 SLLP LCAP Projects

Midhope Nature Reserve
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Staff Salary 400.00 850.00 850.00 400.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00
Funding area
Management Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Project Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Contractors 200,500.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Publicity and promotion 1,500.00
Non recoverable VAT 500.00
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
220,000.00
SLLP LCAP Projects
321

Supporting Local Groups
Managing heathland without grazing or burning
Coordinating partner
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
150 word summary
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership vision and objectives are
around connecting with the landscape and
engaging with those that live within it. There
are a range of activities being ‘led’ by the
partnership and a great deal of delivery will
be via partnership managed sites or agreed
third party action.
There are a number of groups active in the
area who manage sites for natural heritage
and community involvement. It is important
that we have involved these groups in our
joined up thinking and can continue to
involve them as they come forward.
6a. Wadsley and Loxley Common
£14,880
Separate narrative
6b. St Nicholas’s Church
£9,500
Separate narrative
6c. South Yorkshire Bat Group
£15,000
Separate narrative
6d. Bowcroft Cemetary
£5,000
Separate narrative
6e, Rivelin Corn Mill
£20,000
Separate narrative
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
Our vision is inclusive, as well as working
as a partnership the Sheffield Lakelands
project will include a community grant
scheme so that others can become part of
the project throughout the programme. In
addition this project allows smaller groups,
or groups with narrow geographic range to
take part in the partnership from the outset.
Helping us help others to value, enjoy and
understand the landscape.
322 SLLP LCAP Projects

Supporting Local Groups – Wadsley and Loxley Commoners
‘In need of rescue – Heathland being invaded by Birch and Bracken’
Supported local group
SLLP Practical and Volunteer and
Communications Officers supporting a local
group Wadsley and Loxley Commoners
(WALC) recipients rather than project
designers.
150 word summary
Wadsley and Loxley Common lies just on
the edge of Wadsley and is a local gateway
to the Lakelands. The important heathland
habitats are maintained by volunteers
and the area is enjoyed by hundreds of
local people. This project is a range of
community engagement events, such as
bioblitz, capacity building for existing and
new groups, particularly around ecological
training and direct support for important
habitat management.
Full project description
Wadsley Common and the adjoining Loxley
Common is a piece of land owned and
held in trust by Sheffield City Council which
is a public open space used as an area
of recreation and exercise by the general
public. The two commons combined
cover 100 acres (0.40 km2) and is an area
of heather, oak, silver birch, bracken and
grassland which was declared a local
nature reserve in 1999. The W&L Common
is designated as access land under the
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 To
the north of the common is Hillsborough
golf club, which was laid out in 1920.
For a period of 130 years from 1784 the
common was in private hands and was an
area of mining and quarrying, with coal
and ganister being mined and sandstone
quarried for building. There were two drift
SLLP LCAP Projects
323

mines on the common, the Bower mine
and the Top mine. The Bower mine was
owned by the Oughtibridge Silica Firebrick
Company and operated between 1890 and
1940 while the Top mine probably ceased
production in 1943.
In 1913 the common was given to the
council by the descendents of the Payne
family, who gave “seventy five acres of land
at Loxley Common and Wadsley Common
to be used by the public for the purpose
of exercise and recreation, and to be
known as Loxley Chase”. A further twenty
five acres belonging to other landowners
were subsequently included in the W&L
Common. The Common is managed by The
Parks and Countryside Service who work
for Sheffield City Council. The management
plan was drawn up in consultation with
local land owners, members of the public,
representatives from the Wadsley and
Loxley Commoners and local ecologists. The
overall broad aim of the plan is: “To maintain
and enhance the Commons as a wildlife,
landscape, historical and recreational
resource for the enjoyment of the local
community and visitors alike.”
While the City Council have overall
management responsibility for the site,
the Wadey and Loxley Commoners (WALC)
are a local conservation group, not legal
commoners, who aim to conserve the
area of lowland heath and to help others
understand the importance of lowland
heath in the area and the cultural heritage
which created the common in the first
place. The WALC undertake a range of
routine management with a particular
emphasis on continued and on-going
removal of invasive scrub oak and birch from
the remaining heath, and management of
that heath to restore heather and bilberry
cover. In the recent past there was a conflict
within the community between those
who were working to maintain habitats
and those who felt the work was intrusive.
Management has not kept pace with spread
of scrub and the WALC group has achieved
less than it would have wished. The
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Project is an opportunity to re-ignite interest
in this site, to involve and educate the
community and raise the profile of WALC in
order to get new members and new local
volunteers. WALC aim to work carefully with
site users and the local community over the
next few years to achieve this.
Bioblitz, Citizen Science and Interpretation
Understanding the importance of the site
for wildlife is a key element of engaging the
community in the management needed.
In order to do this WALC would like to work
with the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife
Trust (or a suitable ecological consultant) to
run a suite of projects to better understand
what we have, engage people with the site
and train up a number of local people in
habitat and species monitoring to inform
future management. WALC will need
more members, more information and
more knowledge in order to do this. Our
engagement project will include:
A spring Bioblitz event
WALC will launch our engagement
programme with a Bioblitz family event.
Throughout the first year we will carry out a
range of engagement and training events,
including:
• Spring and autumn bird surveys
• Heathland invertebrate surveys
• Habitat survey techniques
• Fungi walks
• Plant identification events
• Mammal Survey
* Note that bat survey events will be carried
out under a separate project.
324 SLLP LCAP Projects

The first year’s activity will engage the
community, identify new volunteers and
give is some baseline-information upon
which we can create a long-term citizen
science project.
Citizen Science a bespoke project
In the 2nd year we will engage an ecologist
to work with existing and new volunteers
to create a monitoring programme and
to train those volunteers in suitable
techniques to undertake routine monitoring
and recording. This will help drive our
management prescriptions and continue
to emphasise the importance of ongoing
management.
Routine heathland management
In addition to our engagement programme
WALC want to better manage the heathland
plots and Loxley Edge. Key pieces of work
include:
• Invasive birch and oak
At present there is limited invasive birch
cutting followed by herbicide treatment
of regrowth by Sheffield City Council
staff, we aim to explore mechanical birch
pulling using levers for the smaller trees
and glyphosate capsule injection for the
larger rooted trees. Larger trees could be
chipped on site with chipping being used
to improve walking routes. Some of this
work is urgent. Continuing tree growth
and Heather loss will make heathland
rescue less viable as time goes on.
• Bracken control
With the loss of Asulox spraying by the
City Council, bracken is becoming a
worse problem. WALC is looking to create
a simple ‘bashing’ regime as part of a
Wadsley and Loxley Common ongoing
action.
• Heather restoration
Initiate a manual turf cutting regime
where enrichment has resulted in
vigorous grasses replacing heather stands.
The turfs to be used to create ‘Cornish
banks’ which in time will become modern
landscape features of management
separating heathland blocks from scrub
and woodland areas. Heather cutting
of existing areas will generate ‘donor’
heather for strewing.
In order to re-ignite this management work
WALC are looking to engage a suitably
skilled volunteer or contract force to action
some of this this work, to bulk the existing
volunteer group and help us attract new
volunteers. WALC will work with the SLLP
Practical Projects and Volunteer Coordinator
to develop and undertake this work. While
in the first year we will only manage the
heathland sites by removing very small
birch and continuing the existing mowing
regime, but in future years we would aim
to incorporate new techniques and ideas
as ‘guided’ by the ecology project and
in-line with increased engagement of the
community and additional new volunteers.
Supporting documents
• English Nature No11, lowland heathland
management booklet version 2.0, N
Michael (1996)
• Wadsley and Loxley Common LNR
Designation records
• Sheffield Heathland HAP 2012
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• Wildscapes to deliver bioblitz and
associated ecology projects. Or this may
be delivered by contract consultants.
• SLLP Practical Projects and Volunteer
Coordinator to help coordinate practical
programme.
• Sheffield City Council Ecology Unit to
undertake initial Wildlife Sites assessment
and possible management prescription
SLLP LCAP Projects
325

and funding of woodland area
management to open views from Loxley
Edge.
• Stepping Out, the Stepping out project
will be invited to take part in events and
undertake practical work if applicable.
• South Yorkshire Archaeology Service will
run a parallel cultural history project from
year 2.
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
South Yorkshire Bat Group will be welcome
to undertake as much survey and practical
work as they wish to both support WALC
management prescriptions and improve the
site for bats.
Strategic fit
The Lawton Report – Making Space for
Nature recognises Lowland Heath and a
priority habitat: In addition, as a result of
recent habitat creation and restoration
efforts for Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)
priority habitats, some of the long-term
negative trends are now beginning to be
reversed. For example, in the 2008 UK BAP
reporting round, eight priority habitats (19%
of those for which reports were received)
were assessed as increasing or ‘probably
increasing’ in England including reedbeds
and lowland heathland.
Sheffield City Council Green and Open
Spaces Strategy 2010, 2030: “The potential
also exists to develop volunteer training
programmes – training volunteers in
exchange for structured involvement in
management.
PP S2 Promote community involvement and
establish community green space groups in
all areas.
- providing a framework of supporting
materials for local groups by 2014
Sheffield Heathland HAP 2012: In Sheffield,
the most extensive areas of heathland
have received statutory protection through
designation as Local Nature Reserves. This
includes the sites at Wharncliffe, Loxley and
Wadsley Common and Wickfield Heath.
JNCC Protected area and designations
directory: Local Nature Reserves (LNRs)
(in England, Scotland and Wales)/ Local
Authority Nature Reserves (LANRs) (in
Northern Ireland)
Under the National Parks and Access to the
Countryside Act 1949 LNRs may be declared
by local authorities after consultation with
the relevant statutory nature conservation
agency. LNRs are declared and managed
for nature conservation, and provide
opportunities for research and education,
or simply enjoying and having contact with
nature
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
2. Bigger, better and more joined up
natural environment for people and
wildlife: Lowland Heath is a very restricted
habitat type in the SLLP area and WALC
constitutes a very significant location
linking with the upland moors in the west
and across to Wharncliffe Heath in the
east.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors: This project aims to create a
better record of the current biological
value of the site as a benchmark to
measure future improvements across
the site. Our events will be designed
specifically to increase the community’s
understanding of the importance of
Lowland Heath as a priority habitat.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy: By holding bioblitz
326 SLLP LCAP Projects

and other open events together with
inviting new local volunteers to become
involved we will increase understanding
and involvement. Only through education
can we better explain why Lowland Heath
is important and get people involved in
maintaining it.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
Heritage will be better managed as25
acres of Lowland Heath habitat will be
measurably improved within the 100 acre
habitat mosaic of W&L Common
The Sheffield City Council Ecology unit will
record and confirm W&L Common as in
better condition.
W&L Common will have a completely new
suite of species and habitat records to act as
benchmarks to management and ongoing
recording, so the common will be better
understood and recorded.
Outputs for people
At least 15 new and existing volunteers will
gain practical field skills in species and
habitat monitoring. 100 people from the
local community and visitors will attend
events based on bioblitz and natural
heritage.
Outcomes for communities
More people and a wider range of people
will have engaged with heritage because
15 new and existing volunteers will gain
practical field skills in species and habitat
monitoring.
Consents required
From public bodies
As both major landowner and statutory
body with responsibility for Local
Nature Reserves, SCC will have to agree
management prescriptions and permit for
events. SCC are full partners of the SLLP
Steering Group
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
1. There is a project in the Hidden History
archaeology project about the history of
W&L Common, this will overlap with our
conservation work.
2. The South Yorkshire Bat Group is
undertaking a project within Supporting
Local Groups, we will be happy to host
them here on the common.
3. The Connecting Steps project has agreed
that they will introduce new visitors to the
common and take part in our events.
4. The WALC have a great deal of knowledge
to share and are looking forward to
working with trainees from the SRWT.
The trainees will gain experience and
the commoners will learn more about
managing projects and budgets.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
1. Priority species recovery
The site previously supported nesting
Nightjar but it is unlikely to do so in
future, however it could be an important
hunting site for Barn Owl. There will be
consideration of erecting a Barn Owl
box as part of the habitat management
project.
2. Telling local stories
WALC are also hosting an archaeology
project. Our natural history project here
will act as an end-point, with the cultural
history of the site being the reason
SLLP LCAP Projects
327

WALC exists as an important habitat and
recreational resource.
3. Monitoring and evaluation
WALC is keen for outcomes to include
confirmation from SCC that the site is in
better condition as a Local Wildlife Site
and that an increased and invigorated
‘Commoners’ (Volunteer Group, not legal
title) group will be a measurable outcome.
WALC is keen that the South Yorkshire Bat
Group include the site for ongoing survey
to establish benefit.
4. Community engagement
Our events will contribute to community
engagement outputs and if we can recruit
new members we will have contributed to
community engagement outcomes (more
people taking part in active conservation
work).
5. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters.
All reports will recognise HLF support and
we will follow guidelines in recognising HLF
support at all events.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
Wadsley and Loxley Common is a very
popular public access site. In reality any
biosecurity requirements put in place
for this project would not achieve any
protection given this high level of use.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
Operational
All the work carried out during this project is
designed to train and increase the capacity
of the local volunteer force with a view to
them being able to maintain momentum
post-funding.
Strategic
This is a prime opportunity for the Wadsley
and Loxley Commoners to launch a new
phase in their activity, a kick-start to
rejuvenate volunteering both in sheer
numbers taking part and the experience
and level of ecological knowledge brought
to their work.
Partner’s Environmental Policy
We will create an environmental policy as
part of this project, it will be an output for
the WALC and will help the trainees we
work with.
Risks
Past, relatively intensive, work on scrub
clearance led to criticism from a minority
of site users which became ‘political’ and
unfriendly. The engagement and practical
conservation projects delivered here will be
carried out sympathetically and in tandem
in order to bring as many users along with
the project and to better communicate the
importance of ongoing management.
Climate Change
Lowland heath as a priority habitat can be
threatened by climate change and our work
will help protect the site from changes. We
have not identified W&L Common as a site
important for adaptation or resilience for
species or habitat types.
All prescription and events need to be
agreed with SCC, but this should require no
specific legal agreements. Felling licences
are in place.
328 SLLP LCAP Projects

Finding out about St Nicholas Church
St Nicholas Church, Bradfield © N Abbas
Supported local group
SLLP Practical and Volunteer and
Communications Officers and the
parishioners of St Nicholas Church.
150 word summary
St Nicholas sits in the heart of the
Landscape Partnership with the cooperation
of the church and local community we have
an opportunity to encapsulate everything
we are doing across the partnership in one
place.
• The digital landscape
• Enhancing our natural heritage
• Archaeology
• Telling local stories
• Learning in the landscape
• Supporting local groups
• Restoring the lattice
Each year of the Landscape Partnership
the core team and a trainee will carry out a
different project, while also carrying forward
the project from the year before. Each year
people from the community will be asked
to get involved.
Full project description
Bradfield is a gateway to the Sheffield
Lakelands. As a village it sits in the heart of
the area, it has a car park, two cafés, two
pubs, village green, and village hall. There
is a regular bus service from the city centre.
Many people visit Bradfield itself or use it
as a stepping off point for their visit to the
Lakelands, St. Nicholas Church is in High
Bradfield.
The Church of St. Nicholas is one of only
five Grade One Listed buildings in Sheffield.
Apart from its historic architecture, the
church is situated in a charming setting,
260 metres (850 ft) above sea level, giving
fine views over the north eastern moors and
valleys of the Peak District National Park
(wikipedia).
SLLP LCAP Projects
329

The churchyard is fully enclosed by a
traditional dry stone wall it is enjoyed by a
range of locals and visitors who visit or use
the footpath through it.
Year 1
The digital landscape
Caring for God’s Acre has been working
with a Church of England project – Burial
Grounds of England Project, (which is
steered by a partnership of organisations
including Historic England, Commonwealth
War Graves Commission, Natural England),
to develop a digital mapping and archiving
system for churches, This will fit with the
Church Heritage Record which is a database
of built heritage. This system has been
developed by the Cumbrian company
Atlantic Geomatics. The initial survey
involves a combination of ‘back-pack laser’
and ‘drone’ mapping creating a hi-resolution
digital map of the exterior of the church
and church grounds which includes the
exact location of all above ground features
such as trees and monuments. The practical
element of this takes place on-site and the
local school can be invited to see work in
progress and to learn how to populate the
map.
The digital map is made available to the
local archivists who can use it to ‘map’
archive material about the church. In
addition the community can contribute to
the digital information through submitting
digital photographs of grave markers (ad
similar). When these are taken with relevant
reference points they can be accurately
loaded to create a ‘virtual’ churchyard which
can be viewed on-line.
In year 1 we intend to engage Atlantic
Geomatics to undertake the digital survey. In
addition to the survey itself they will supply
training to the local volunteer archivist and
supporters. These people will become the
main users of the software. The map will
be owned by the church, to be used for a
variety of ways and updated as burials take
place.
During year 1 the Steel Valley Project
team will improve the PRoW through the
churchyard, this will concentrate upon
scraping accumulated soil and leaf litter etc.
and redressing with suitable aggregate.
There will also be a community event held
on-site to demonstrate how the project
works and explain how the community
can contribute through photography and
getting involved in the project as a whole.
Year 2
Habitat surveys and management
The church yard is fully enclosed and
already benefits from being grazed by
sheep, this means that it should be possible
to create good wildlife habitats as on-going
management (sheep) is available. However,
an initial walk-over indicates that the flora
of the church yard is relatively poor; the
grasses are quite layered and rank and there
are a lot of nettles. This may be a result of
historical leaching of silage liquor from a
clamp above the yard.
The church yard is recognised as an
important site for Wall Brown butterfly and
this, together with bats, will form the ‘key’
species for the management prescription.
These charismatic species will help engage
the local community in becoming involved
in the habitat management of the grounds.
We will also look to creating nesting
opportunities for ‘classic’ churchyard bird
species such as swifts.
We will engage an Ecologist from
“Supporting Species” to work with the SLLP
team and the trainee for the year to survey
the project site and undertake capital
and volunteer tasks to ‘kick start’ habitat
development and management for the
churchyard. Activities will include:
330 SLLP LCAP Projects

Ecologist and trainee to spend two
community days (early spring and summer)
surveying the site with community
engagement to create a ‘habitat plan’. This
plan will be loaded onto the ‘digital map’.
Trainee with support of Volunteer
Coordinator to undertake a capital project
with volunteers and contractors over a
number of days in summer, autumn and
winter. The work is liable to include:
1. Replacement and upgrade of
permanent sheep fencing, making sheep
management more flexible and the
fencing more attractive in the churchyard.
2. Biomass removal, mostly contractors to
scarify, or turf strip, old rank grassland
areas and strew green hay from Carr
House Meadows (local SRWT grassland
nature reserve).
3. Creation of a composting area with a
view to the local community removing
composted material for home use.
4. Initiation of a ‘God’s hay’ project where
local people can buy mini-bales of hay for
pets.
5. Ongoing management plan and survey
ideas for the community to continue
managing the church yard as an attractive
and wildlife rich resource.
6. Design and commission an information
board about the Churchyard and what
people can do to help maintain it.
Year 3
Restoring the lattice
In year 3 the new trainee will work with an
Ecologist from (Back from the Brink?) will
continue to work with the community to
develop both the digital project and the
practical habitat work, including introducing
‘surveying for Wall Brown’ to involve the
community in monitor a key species for the
site.
In addition this trainee, who like each
trainee will be receiving dry stone walling
training with SRWT under the Restoring the
Lattice project, will undertake to help repair
the dry stone wall boundary of the church
yard.
Year 4
Telling local stories
In the final year of the HLF funded part of
SLLP The Communication and Engagement
Officer with the support of that year’s
trainee will organise a summer event to tell
the local story. This will include:
• A talk on the history, archive and notable
features of the church and church yard
with links to the wider history of SLLP,
given by volunteers engaged during the
previous years.
• A folk and folk-law event based around
the church and landscape areas.
• A celebration of the churchyard as a
wildlife and cultural centre for the areas.
Year 1 – 4
Bats
Another of the ‘supporting local groups’
projects is a bat project delivered by the
local Bat Group. Each year that project
will survey the bats using the grave yard
with a view to determining how improved
management has benefitted the bats. The
group will hold a bat evening each year with
a view to informing the community and
gaining new members. This will incur no
costs regarding this project.
Supporting documents
Atlantic Geomatics 2018
The Atlantic Geomatics developed with
the Church of England is an award winning
Burial Ground Management System (BGMS).
It is a secure, easy to use solution that
will hold and protect records and provide
SLLP LCAP Projects
331

numerous additional benefits.
Based on an accurate, up-to-date
and interactive map the unique and
comprehensive system brings with it a host
of immediate benefits:
• The BGMS is secure and online. We
will host digital maps and records,
eliminating the risk of theft, fire and flood,
which could damage or destroy your
irreplaceable documents,
• The BGMS is easy to access, anytime and
anywhere,
• The BGMS has simple tools to enable
users to add or update a record, search for
a grave, map a reserved plot, view record
details, upload images and analyse your
records, all in one place.
The BGMS map shows the location of each
grave and memorial, the footprint of any
buildings, trees, flora and fauna, paths,
buildings, benches and signs.
The BGMS will also helps with forward
planning, conservation management or tree
preservation. With the BGMS organisations
can also:
• Turn map layers on and off
• Measure distances or calculate areas
• Add new graves or memorials
• Print your own maps
• Help visitors to find relatives graves
• Carry out easy searches to find specific
graves by names or date or age.
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
1. The South Yorkshire Bat Group will carry
out survey work and advise on how the
site can be better managed for bats.
2. The SLLP trainees will help design and
deliver projects for the community.
3. Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
St Nicholas Church sits in the heart of the
Landscape Partnership area. By creating
a community project we will directly
contributor to A landscape for everyone to
value, enjoy, understand – and feel part of.
Strategic fit
Rather than demonstrate a strategic fit with
wider regional, or national initiative the key
target for this project will be to demonstrate
the objectives of the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership in a microcosm. It
will be impossible to demonstrate every
part of what we aim to achieve by working
together (such a natural flood management)
but we should be able to encapsulate the
spirit of the Landscape Partnership.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
2. Bigger, better and more joined up
natural environment for people and
wildlife: By working to improve the
conservation value of the church grounds
the community will contribute to the
wider landscape by creating a connecting
feature within the landscape.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors: We will be recording the historic,
cultural and ecological features of the
church grounds, this information will be
made available through SLLP.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after
it – a landscape for all to learn about,
value, experience and enjoy: This project
is about helping people understand
their heritage as a complex relationship
between human history, natural heritage
and current communities.
332 SLLP LCAP Projects

HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
1 site of (appx) 2 hectares will be better
managed and in better condition, the
species and habitats will be better recorded.
Outputs for people
To a limited extent participating members
of the community will be trained in digital
mapping techniques. 2 archivists will receive
training in managing a digital mapping
system
10 adults and 5 young people will receive
training in populating digital archives 5 local
people will receive training in ecological
survey techniques
25 young people will learn about digital
heritage mapping and 50 people will attend
a range of events based about this project
where they will learn about local heritage.
2 archivists will contribute skilled time 2
volunteer surveys will contribute skilled time
through ecological survey 15 volunteers will
give at least 1 day volunteering as unskilled
support to various projects.
would not have.
By the end of the HLF funded element
of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership there will be a new community
group (not necessarily constituted) helping
to protect our heritage and actively
increasing community cohesion.
Consents required
From public bodies
The church is grade 1 listed but we envisage
no activity requiring listed building consent
The vast majority of the proposed activity
and physical outcomes only require PCC
Consent, which has been received.
The erection of bat or bird boxes on trees
and possibly the repair of the dry stone
wall may require permission via a faculty
for bat and swift boxes however and would
need to check this with the Diocesan
Advisory Committee secretary, the Diocesan
Environment Officer or the Archdeacon, it
is highly unlikely this would be refused (if
needed).
Planning permission is not required for the
redressing of the PRoW.
Photographs
Outcomes for communities
Negative environmental impacts will be
reduced
At present the church yard is quite species
poor with a wide spread of nettles and rank
grasses throughout, this, in part, may be a
result of historic eutrophication from the
neighbouring silage clamp. This project will
reduce excess biomass and help restore a
habitat.
In addition to the 19 volunteers who become
involved with this project we have a target
of 25 young people and 50 adults engaging
with their local heritage who otherwise
The churchyard © N Abass
SLLP LCAP Projects
333

6. Digital landscape (i.e. using technology)
Demonstrate new technology for digital
archiving
7. Community engagement
Creating a new community initiative
The churchyard © N Abass
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
1. Digital landscape
During year 1 of the project this project will
scan and digitise the churchyard, this will
be the first such project in the area and
will contribute to digital landscape project
by creating a ‘demonstration’ of what can
be achieved.
2. Restoring the lattice
Our trainees will have an opportunity to
work with the community and demonstrate
their newly acquired walling skills.
3. SLLP training programme
Each year a trainee will help the local
community deliver a project.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
4. Priority species recovery
This project will host the bat survey
project. While Wall Brown might not be a
target species for the SLLP it will be a key
species for the project.
5. Telling local stories
This project will host a local story event
but will also be a ‘modern’ local story in
its own right.
8. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters.
This is wholly a HLF project and
opportunity to demonstrate a Landscape
Partnership in microcosm.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
This is a community project on a site with
mostly open access with the exception
of ensuring we do not introduce nonnative
invasive species we do not intend to
maintain any biosecurity.
No confidentiality requirements.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
None required
Operational
We would aim to leave a self-sustaining
community group behind this project which
would not require continued support.
Partner’s Environmental Policy
One may be developed during the project
Risks
The most significant risk is that a
‘community initiative’ will not be selfsustaining
after the HLF funded element of
the Landscape partnership is complete.
We will work with this new group for four
years, their ability to carry on after support
ends will form part of the Monitoring and
Evaluation programme.
334 SLLP LCAP Projects

Supporting Local Groups – South Yorkshire Bat Group
Supported local group
South Yorkshire Bat Group
150-word summary
The South Yorkshire bat group was originally
set up with the aim of furthering the study
and conservation of bats in the South
Yorkshire region.
• To achieve this we set the following
objectives:
• Develop a database of bat records for the
South Yorkshire region.
• Increase the number of Natural England
Volunteer Bat Workers.
• Provide training for group members to
increase the skills and knowledge of
those interested in studying bats in South
Yorkshire.
• Support projects suggested by bat group
members.
• Assist Local Planning Authorities,
Government Bodies, charities and other
organisations wherever possible in
matters relating to bats.
• Provide talks, walks, and presentations to
members of the public.
Full project description
The South Yorkshire Bat Group
The South Yorkshire bat group was originally
set up with the aim of furthering the study
and conservation of bats in the South
Yorkshire region.
To achieve this we set the following
objectives:
• Develop a database of bat records for the
South Yorkshire region.
SLLP LCAP Projects
335

• Increase the number of Natural England
Volunteer Bat Workers.
• Provide training for group members to
increase the skills and knowledge of
those interested in studying bats in South
Yorkshire.
• Support projects suggested by bat group
members.
• Assist Local Planning Authorities,
Government Bodies, charities and other
organisations wherever possible in
matters relating to bats.
• Provide talks, walks, and presentations to
members of the public.
• Meetings and events throughout the
year for members in training, roost visits,
hibernation checks, and participation in
the national bat monitoring scheme
We also provide a bat rescue and
rehabilitation service which is kindly run by
bat group volunteers.
The Project
The SYBG do not manage nature reserves
themselves but are very keen to both
improve nature reserves and other sites
for bats and to help people who manage
sites better understand and value the bats
that rely upon these sites. In addition, the
groups want to strengthen habitats and
connectivity across the SLLP to increase
the resilience of existing populations and
increase opportunities for bat species
movement, particularly north-south to as
adaptation to climate change. Bats are also
a key indicator species for habitats health,
our project will generate information that
will help the SLLP measure success and
evaluate the value of the work it has done to
improve habitats for wildlife.
In order to do this, the group plans to
approach the project using a tiered public
engagement and survey strategy which
will be informed by the skill level required
to undertake the event or task safely ( i.e.
without risking injuring bats or people). All
events and/or surveys will be undertaken
within the Landscape partnership Area. The
first two years survey and events will aim to
determine key sites within the area for bats
Delivery phase
During delivery phase the bat group will:
• Undertaken a ‘hibernation site’ search
of the landscape partnership area. This
will include a desktop study to identify
potential hibernation sites within the area
(i.e. underground sites, historic structures)
utilising GIS and the minimum of 1
hibernation site visits per year.
• Undertake Transect and Static Surveys
of key sites within the landscape
partnerships area as and when identified.
• Undertaken harp trapping surveys of
woodlands within the LLPA. This will feed
into the national Small Myotis project and
inform landscape-scale management of
several sites within the area.
• Undertake at least 3 bat walks per year
within the Sheffield Lakelands to both
educate the general public about bats
and to gain new members for the group.
• Provide advice to the site owners and
managers on ways to encourage bats
throughout the LLPA as and when
required.
• Work with site owners and managers to
install and monitor roost boxes.
• Undertake harp trapping survey at any
potential swarming site identified within
the hibernation checks
In the final year of the project, the group
will assess the data generated and support
the M&E programme with speciesbased
evidence of habitat / condition
336 SLLP LCAP Projects

improvement on both specific sites and
regional connectivity, species mobility.
Supporting documents
1. South Yorkshire Bat Group Habitat
suitability Models outputs (2015
2. Mitchell- Jones A.J. Bat Mitigation
Guidelines (2004) English Nature ISBN 1
85716 781 3
3. Gunnel, K, Grant, G and Williams, C. (2012)
Landscape and urban design for bats and
biodiversity. Bat Conservation Trust
4. Collins J. (2016) Bat surveys for professional
Ecologist: Good Practice Guidelines (3rd
ed.) The Bat Conservation Trust
5. National Bat Monitoring Programme
Annual Report NBMP (2016) Bat
conservation Trust http://www.bats.org.uk/
pages/nbmp_annual_report.html
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
The following partners (Steering Partners
and Delivery Partners) will have bat group
activity on their sites:
• SCC Forestry
• YW Forestry
• SRWT Reserves
• Steel Valley Partnership
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
• List of other sites (subject to access being
arranged)
• St Nicholas church
• Wadlsey and Loxley Common
• Bowfield cemetery
• Midhope Local Wildlife Site (LWS)
• Stores wood
• Wyming Brook Nature Reserve
• Fog Nagg
• Ewden Valley woodlands and Beck
• Yew Tree wood
• Lower Little Don
Strategic Fit
The Small Myotis Project
Bats are highly cryptic and mobile species.
There are 18 resident species within the
United Kingdom, of which 8 are currently
known to be present in South Yorkshire. Due
to their cryptic nature, (i.e. only be active at
night and virtually undetectable without
special equipment) bats are inherently
difficult to survey and historical records are
often compiled from here say accounts.
Different species have involved specialising
in different habitat types utilises selected
niches and hunting strategies. The main
method of the survey used to detected bats
is the detection of their echolocation calls
which the bats use for navigation, hunting
and social activities. Of the eight species
known to be present in South Yorkshire,
4 are from the Myotis genus. The Myotis
genus echolocation calls are currently
indistinguishable from each other with
any reasonable confidence using modern
analysis techniques. As such, their current
distribution and population estimates at
national, regionally and local scales are
presently determined from a very poor data
set and are mainly derived from expert
opinion (NBMP, 2016). In addition to these
survey constraints, some Myotis species
are also extremely difficult to identify
within the hand, whiskered and Brandt’s
bats population estimates are presently
combined due to the difficulty of separating
them with any confidence in the field
without DNA sampling. This uncertainty
has been compounded by the discovery of
Alcathoe bat in the UK in 2010 in, a third
SLLP LCAP Projects
337

cryptic species in this small Myotis species
group. The distribution of Alcathoe bat in
the UK is also poorly known although it is
thought to be localised and rare and it is
likely to have occurred in the UK prior to its
discovery in 2010. Likewise, there is currently
one reliable record (DNA dropping sample
from a roost) of the Brandt’s bat within
South Yorkshire and records of whiskered
bats are rare and poorly recorded. The
swarming project was undertaken by
South Yorkshire Bat Group in 2016 and 2017
recorded whiskered bats
The small Myotis project is a national
project managed by Local Bat Groups and
professional species specialists to gather
data to better inform the distribution of
small Myotis species throughout the UK. The
project involves undertaking harp trapping
surveys at suitable woodland sites with the
aid of the AT100 acoustic lure. The data
collected will inform population estimates
at national and regional scales and will be
used to inform conservation strategies and
regional policies.
Sheffield City Council Green and Open
Spaces Strategy 2010, 2030
The project will engage with local groups
and volunteers.
“The potential also exists to develop
volunteer training programmes – training
volunteers in exchange for structured
involvement in management.
PP S2 Promote community involvement and
establish community green space groups in
all areas
The Paris Agreement – Climate Action : It
is predicted and been demonstrated to
some degree already that climate change is
affecting species ranges and distributions.
There is currently not enough information
to confidently predict how climate change
will impact bats. However, the subsequent
changes in habitats and successive
invertebrate distributions will undoubtedly
impact bat species, with the more specialist
species potential suffering due to lack of
resources. The project will better inform the
distributions of bats throughout the region
and provide good quality baseline data to
predict the effect of climate change on bat
species within the LLPA and add additional
evidence to the regional and national data
sets.
The Lawton Report : The Lawton Report
– Making Space for Nature recognises
that England supports internationally rare
species of bats. It also acknowledges that
recent agricultural intensification has had
detrimental effects on species and that is
difficult to know what effects this has had
on specialist groups such as bats. It also
recognises that bat landscape projects can
make a real difference.
The Batscapes Project led by Bath and North
East Somerset Council between 2003 and
2007, involving 35 different land-holdings,
promoting a wide range of community-led
activities; a key feature was protecting and
enhancing bits of the landscape important
for bats (Haysom et al. 2010). More of
such activities will make a real difference.
Indeed, studies have found that habitat
heterogeneity can be more important than
size in influencing the species diversity of
wildlife sites (Báldi 2008).
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
1. A more connected and resilient landscape:
Bats are mobile species with rapid
response to climatic and habitat changes
as such they can be used to help measure
improvements in habitat resilience over a
landscape scale.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife:
By working with all willing landowner/
managers within the SLLP programme
338 SLLP LCAP Projects

on a limited range of species which have
requirements for connected habitats and
a range of habitats the SLLP can create
a more coherent long-term plan for
habitats.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors: This project will build a better
picture of our bat populations and inform
local people about the bats they rarely
see but are there, their importance as
indicator species and how they can help
protect both habitats and species in
future.
4. A better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy: By working with
the land managers the Bat Group will
increase the skill level and understanding
of key individuals and organisations in the
SLLP and beyond. There will be a range
of public events where communities
can visit local sites, meet experts and
experience first-hand bats and the work of
the bat group.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross-reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
At least 4 sites will have management
prescription and boxes to improve habitats
for bats. They will be better identified and
recorded and opportunities for improved
management will be increased.
The minimum of 4 sites will be trapped
for bats during the first year. The results of
these trapping sessions will inform further
tapping events in the preceding years with
the intention of expanding the survey effort
to include additional sites
Outputs for people
We aim to recruit 5 number new members
to our group, these will all receive in-house
training to increase their bat identification
and survey skills. While undertaking the
range of survey and events new and existing
members of the group will gain experience
undertaking a varied mix of bat surveys.
The trapping events will allow members to
be trained in ‘in the hand, bat identification
New and existing members will develop
survey skills and learn new techniques.
20 people will take part per public bat
events (3 public events per year).
30 volunteers from the bat group will
contribute one or more days to the project
during development and delivery (record
separately)
Outcomes for communities
Negative environmental impacts will be
reduced as land managers will be more
aware of the requirements of bats within
the habitats throughout the landscape
partnership, this will include the importance
of not ‘cleaning up’ things like dead wood
and providing unlit dark corridors for
foraging and commuting bats.
More people and a wider range of people
will have engaged with heritage when
we will hold 1 event per year, these
would normally be advertised to local
communities and would attract the usual
suspects. However, three events will be
targeted directly toward supporting the
SRWT ‘connecting steps’ project which aims
to engage hard to reach groups.
Consents required
From public bodies NE Bat licences, in hand
The Bat Group will require landowner/
manager permission to survey sites, erect
boxes and hold events.
SLLP LCAP Projects
339

Demonstrate links/cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
We have agreed to support a range of
partner projects in the SLLP programme
including:
1. The Wadsley and Loxley Commoners
and the St Nciholas Church project in
‘Supporting local Groups’
2. Visiting Storrs Wood, which has a project
in the ‘Hidden History’ project.
3. Our work will also feed in to future
management f forestry and woodland in
the ‘Woodland Heart’ project.
4. The findings of our work will create usable
data for use under the ‘Back from the
brink / to be renamed’ project.
Cross-Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to our work with the
following:
1. Priority species recovery
We expect that bats (as a group of
species) are going to be a priority ‘species’
our surveys will support that work.
2. Telling local stories
We will hold community events to engage
people and tell them of the importance
of habitats for species if this can be
coordinated with wider engagement
projects such as a bioblitz we will do our
best to contribute to the local history as
well.
4. Monitoring and evaluation
Our work will be available to support the
M&E Programme with specific emphasis
on habitat connectivity and potentially a
significant outcome for climate change
adaptation.
5. Evidencing ecosystem services
As above
6. Community engagement
Our events will contribute to community
engagement outputs and if we can recruit
new members we will have contributed to
community engagement outcomes (more
people taking part in active conservation
work).
7. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters.
All reports will recognise HLF support and
we will follow guidelines in recognising
HLF support at all events.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
All data will be gifted to the bat group to
inform conservation strategies and to be
used for planning consultation request. All
survey will be undertaken following best
practice guidelines following.
Landowner and managers will be asked
during the risk assessment process if any
biosecurity issues or concerns are present
and best practice guidance followed to
prevent any contamination
3. Digital landscape (i.e. using technology)
We will introduce people to bat detectors,
GIS mapping and analysis software
340 SLLP LCAP Projects

Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
We will require a Natural England Licence
for this work, we have included the writing
of such requests as a training element in
our project so that new and inexperienced
volunteers can better understand legal
requirements.
Operational
All equipment will be ‘written off’ over the
lifetime of the project or through agreed
disposal.
Strategic
We are looking developing a stronger
volunteer bat group by undertaking this
work.
Risks
The group is heavily reliant on volunteers,
as such the number of people available to
carry out the project may vary a little over
the life of the project. However, the group
does have several core long-term members
who are unlikely to leave the group in the
near and distant future.
All survey and events are dependent on
access restrictions and suitable weather
conditions.
Climate Change
The project will better inform the
distributions of bats throughout the region
and provide good quality baseline data to
predict the effect of climate change on bat
species within the LLPA, as well in the wider
region and nationally.
SLLP LCAP Projects
341

Supporting Local Groups - Bowcroft Cemetery
Bowcroft Cemetery, Neil Theasby Geography.org.uk/p/3846971 Creative Commons
Supported local group
The project will be run by the Steel Valley
Project and be overseen by Bradfield Parish
Council, who own the land.
150 word summary
Bowcroft Cemetary is an ancient Quaker
burial ground, where members of the Shaw
family were laid to rest back in the 1700s.
The cemetary is located on Riggs High
Road, situated on a high ridgeline above
Stannington in a rural, isolated location,
with panoramic views across Sheffield and
the Peak District. The site is now cared for
by Bradfield Parish Council and there are
some basic site facilities available, such
as benches and a stone inscribed with
basic information on the site. There is a
small lay-by on the road which provides
limited parking for those wishing to visit.
The project aims to conserve, restore and
interpret the features of interest on site,
alongside improving the habitats for wildlife
and some small-scale access improvements,
to help people to walk around the site.
Full project description
Entrance improvements
The entrance is currently accessed via a small
but steep step up from the lay-by adjacent
to the road. SVP would install a 3m section
of surfaced path to make the sit more
accessible.
Interpretation
The on-site information currently consists of
a stone carved with a brief site description.
SVP would install an interpretation panel
to inform site visitors about the history of
the site, based on Bradfield Parish Council
archive information.
342 SLLP LCAP Projects

Wall repairs
The cemetery is bordered by a substantial
dry stone wall, which has become
dilapidated in sections with some of
the sawn coping stones missing. SVP
would carry out the walling repairs
across 10 metres of wall and find suitable
replacement stone using local quarried
sandstone.
Vegetation management
There are hedges and trees on site, which
provide protection from the weather and a
home for wildlife. Some of the vegetation is
starting to encroach on the paths and some
of the trees are crowding each other as
they mature. SVP would carry out sensitive
vegetation management to improve access
on the site, whilst retaining the habitat that
the trees and hedges provide for wildlife.
Supporting documents
1. Bradfield Parish Council archive
information on the site is available.
2. Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
3. Bradfield Parish Council own the land
and have provide historical information
to inform the production of the on-site
interpretation.
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
The project will help to improve members
of the public’s understanding of this
historic site and enable them to access
it more easily. The site also provides a
‘stepping stone’ for wildlife within in area of
agricultural land, with its dry stone walls and
trees connecting the lowland and upland
habitats that characterise the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership area.
Strategic fit
• The Outdoor City Strategy 2015-
‘Infrastructure to support a quality
experience’- this project will contribute
towards improved infrastructure to enable
access to the outdoors.
• The Move More Plan 2015- ‘Empowered
Communities’ and ‘active environments’-
this project will engage volunteers in their
environment encouraging them to be
active in the outdoors leading to positive
health outcomes.
• Green and Open Space Strategy 2010-
‘Green connections for people and
wildlife’- this project will contribute
towards improved habitat connectivity
between lowland and upland habitats
and provide improved access for people.
• The Peak District, Dark Peak (Yorkshire
Fringe) Strategy 2009- ‘Repair and protect
dry stone walls’ is a priority throughout
the landscape priority type.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
1. A more connected and resilient
landscape: Bowcroft cemetery provides
a stepping stone between lowland and
upland habitats.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife: The
habitats at Bowcroft Cemetery will be
improved, providing a better connected
landscape for wildlife.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors: On site interpretation will draw
attention to the interesting history and
story behind the site.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy: Bowcroft Cemetery
SLLP LCAP Projects
343

will be better interpreted and understood
by members of the public for its historic
and cultural value. Volunteers will help
to look after the site and work on its
restoration and interpretation.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
573m2 of mixed deciduous woodland
will be better managed, 3 metres of new
footpath will be created.
10m of dry stone walls will be repaired and
generally be in better condition.
1 new interpretation panel will be designed
and installed.
Outputs for people
Outcomes for communities
Negative environmental impacts will be
reduced as the damaged dry stone walls
will be repaired, without this intervention
they would eventually be lost, this wildlife
corridor will be preserved.
Members of the public will learn more
about the history of the site through
volunteering and new site interpretation.
Access will be improved to the site, enabling
a wider number of people to enjoy the
heritage and wildlife at the cemetery.
Consents required
None
Photographs
The gravestones on site are still intact and
situated at the far end of the cemetery.
10 people will volunteer their time,
developed skills, received uncertified
training and learned about heritage.
344 SLLP LCAP Projects

Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
Hidden History - There is potential to both
feed into and benefit from this project,
with the potential for new information on
the archaeology of the area that may shed
light on the wider context of the history of
Bowcroft Cemetery.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
8. Telling local stories
The legends and stories associated with
Bowcroft Cemetary will be incorporated
into the on-site interpretation.
9. Community engagement
Volunteers will be engage in the project
and will participate in the practical
work required to complete the different
aspects of the work, this will include
informal training.
10. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters.
Steel Valley Project will promote this project
through its website, social media and local
media contacts. HLF will be recognised on
the interpretation panel.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Operational
Bradfield Parish Council own and maintain
the site and will continue to provide
maintenance, including the newly installed
interpretation, through their groundsmen.
Strategic
Volunteers will be engaged in the project
and will develop an understanding of the
site and its history.
Partner’s Environmental Policy
Steel Valley Project’s Environmental Policy is
attached.
Risks
Lack of volunteer support- this will be
mitigated by SVPs volunteer recruitment
and support, including providing
transportation for volunteers to this remote
site.
Climate Change
This project will provide small scale habitat
management which will improve the
connectivity between lowland and upland
habitats vital for species being pushed
further north as the climate warms.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
When undertaking practical work, SVP
staff and volunteers will clean PPE and
equipment to prevent the transfer of
diseases, spores and seeds to contain
potential biohazards.
SLLP LCAP Projects
345

Supporting Local Groups - Rivelin Valley Conservation Group
Rivelin Corn Mill will make a great
location for a wildlife pond
Supported local group
SLLP Practical and Volunteer and
Communications Officers and the Rivelin
Valley Conservation Group
150 word summary
The Rivelin Valley to the west of Sheffield,
made a significant contribution to the early
industrial revolution over the last 500 years
with its water powered mills. It has since
become a popular visitor attraction with
3 miles of nature trail passing the remains
of those mills, a park, café and paddling
pools all providing idyllic outdoor exercise
for the community. The Rivelin Valley
Conservation Group for over 25 years has
played an important role in helping keep
much of the valley accessible to the public,
helping preserve some of the millponds for
wildlife and providing interpretation for its
heritage. Unfortunately lack of investment
is quite noticeable around popular areas
of the nature trail with footpaths that are
extremely muddy and uneven and almost
impassable for wheel chairs and push
chairs. The RVCG would like to help upgrade
these paths, create a wildlife pond and
extend the heritage interpretation.
Full project description
Rivelin Valley to the west of Sheffield, is
a popular visitor attraction for walking,
running, cycling and horse riding on various
paths along its 3 miles of nature trail. The
government is currently promoting healthy
physical and mental exercise to help
improve public health and to help reduce
the costs of ill health to its NHS.
346 SLLP LCAP Projects

The Rivelin Valley can play an important
part in supporting these initiatives by
enticing the public with a quality nature
trail that provides interest and education
on its recent history while surrounded
by a wealth of wildlife. The Rivelin Valley
Conservation Group (RVCG) has an army of
volunteers from all different backgrounds
and who, for over 25 years, regularly enjoy
helping maintain the nature trail and for
which the passing public often show their
gratitude. The RVCG work closely with the
Sheffield City Council (SCC) who own the
land and with whom they have developed
a unique trust that work carried out by the
RVCG is done safely and effectively. There
are some larger projects that the RVCG
would like to undertake but which require
assisted funding.
Footpath restoration
Most visitors to the Rivelin Valley tend to
use the areas around Rivelin Park because
of the public facilities available and its
proximity to local residents. The footpaths
either side of Rivelin Park are very muddy
and uneven and unsuitable for pushchairs,
wheelchairs and children’s cycles.
Restoration of these footpaths would make
the nature trail much more accessible to all
in this very popular location.
Rivelin Mill Wildlife Pond
The RVCG helped rebuild Rivelin Mill Pond
following a campaign to have it restored
after the dam wall was breached in 2001.
The RVCG also helped install an oak dipping
platform, an outdoor classroom and picnic
benches. The new dam was officially
opened on 17 May 2007 but is quite sterile
due to lack of pond vegetation and the
RVCG has had a long-term desire to create
a wildlife pond. It is proposed to do an
ecological survey before and after to reveal
the benefits of a wildlife pond
Signage and Interpretation
The Rivelin Park Café was once Spooners
Wheel Mill and the adjacent childrens
playground was the adjoining millpond. The
RVCG would like to provide information at
this location to inform visitors of the history
and original function of this heritage.
National Heritage Day
The RVCG would like to organise a heritage
day during the national Heritage Weeks to
encourage families into the valley and to
provide short walks and information about
the environment of the nature trail, its
history and its heritage. The RVCG would
like to purchase a large gazebo for this and
other future events
Tools and Safety Wear
The RVCG provide basic safety wear for
its task team members and would like to
provide safety boots and foul weather gear
as some individuals attend task days ill
equipped. The purchase of some items of
digging equipment will also increase the
task teams capability and efficiency.
Training
The following training would be useful to a
few members of the task team
Use of a chain saw
Woodland Management
First Aid
Site Visit
To arrange a site visit for a few task team
members to possibly Blackburn Meadows
to discuss the details of creating a wildlife
pond
SLLP LCAP Projects
347

Supporting documents
1. Walking the Rivelin – an RVCG publication
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• South Yorkshire Bat Group
• Sheffield and Rotherham wildlife Trust,
Connecting steps project
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
• Digger Contractor – TBC
• Wildlife planting – Peak District
Countryside Maintenance
• The Sheffield City Council is the current
owner of the land adjacent Rivelin Mill
and Yorkshire Water are responsible for
the River Rivelin and associated dams.
Both will be consulted as part of the
design and invited to contribute to the
overall project.
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
The Rivelin Valley has 3 miles of winding
river through a wooded valley rich in
wildlife. The valley has a nature trail end to
end which passes the 20 mills of the historic
Rivelin Cutlery industry. The remaining
mill ponds provide a haven for wildlife and
added interest for passers-by. The East end
of the valley has a park with playground,
café, toilets and paddling pools which is a
magnet for families. The valley supports
walkers, runners, cyclists and horse riders
The upper end of the valley to the West
terminates at Rivelin Mill and with its car
park is a popular place to start walks at the
quieter end of the nature trail.
Strategic fit
The Lawton Report – ‘That we better protect
and manage our designated wildlife sites’.
Rivelin Corn Mill dam was restored in 2007
and is a prime site to become a wildlife
pond with the appropriate profiling and
planting
The Sheffield Waterways Strategy – City of
Rivers: ‘As beautiful places for people to
relax and enjoy’
‘As rich habitats for wildlife’
Rivelin Corn Mill is a popular meeting place
for visitors to relax and enjoy the diversity of
wildlife with its outdoor classroom, picnic
benches and dipping platform. Creation of
a wildlife pond would create more wildlife
diversity and added interest for its visitors.
The Outdoor City Strategy: The Rivelin Valley
is a very popular destination for visitors
wanting to experience the tranquillity
and spirit lifting effects of the outdoors.
Improved footpaths will make it more
accessible for all
Don Catchment Rivers Trust (DCRT)Recovery
and improvements at Rivelin Corn Mill
will help support the DCRT strategy “To
conserve, protect, rehabilitate and improve
the Rivers Don, Dearne and Rother and the
associated non-tidal and tidal systems that
might influence their fauna, flora, water
quality and hydrology.”
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
1. A more connected and resilient landscape:
Creation of a wildlife pond at Rivelin Mill
will provide the opportunity for a diversity
of wildlife
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife:
Footpath improvements will allow greater
public access for wheelchairs, pushchairs
and children’s cycles.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors: The RVCG have already installed a
348 SLLP LCAP Projects

mill marker at each mill location with the
name of the dam and a QR code allowing
those with smart phones to access more
information on its website
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after
it – a landscape for all to learn about,
value, experience and enjoy: Additional
interpretation will help make the public
aware of the history of the children’s play
area and Rivelin Café. The RVCG has
already provided mill markers with QR
codes allowing visitors to access the RVCG
website which provides information on
each dam.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
Which aspect of heritage will be better
managed because training in Woodland
Management will help us plan task days
more effectively. Chainsaw use and First
Aid training will improve our safe working
practices and allow us to have first aiders on
hand
An ecological survey at Rivelin Corn Mill
before and after the creation of a wildlife
pond will help us understand the benefits
to local wildlife
Outputs for people
The newly trained task team leaders
will pass on their knowledge and skills
to members of the task team at the
appropriate time. Also the construction of
footpaths to the required standard will be a
necessary skill. Two RVCG task team leaders
will be trained in Woodland Management,
first aid and will achieve the licensed use of
a chainsaw.
More people will learn about our heritage
as RVCG plan to hold an open day during
Heritage Days to familiarise local visitors
with the remaining Rivelin Valley heritage
and its history
The RVCG task team has about 30+
volunteers on record with between 10 and
20 in attendance at any one time at each of
its task day events. Other members of the
RVCG will also contribute towards its public
events such as Heritage Days
Outcomes for communities
Negative environmental impacts will be
reduced as resurfaced footpaths at key
locations will improve the accessibility
and safety for the public. The creation of
a wildlife pond at Rivelin Corn Mill should
greatly improve the environment for wildlife.
Removal of silt from the smaller pond
to help create the wildlife pond will also
improve the waterflow into the dam
More people and a wider range of people
will have engaged with heritage because
Rivelin Corn Mill already has numerous
information panels, an outdoor classroom,
picnic tables and an oak pond dipping
platform. The creation of a wildlife pond will
be an important addition for the benefit
of its visitors such as school children, cubs,
scouts and guides.
One of the chief aims of the RVCG is
to engage parents to encourage them
to introduce their children to the great
outdoors, the industrial history of the Rivelin
Valley and the nature reserve at Rivelin
Corn Mill. Improved footpaths will also
encourage the public to visit the valley and
to experience the benefits of its nature trail
Consents required
The RVCG task team works closely and with
the permission of the Sheffield City Council
who will fully support these projects
SLLP LCAP Projects
349

Photographs
Muddy uneven footpaths are real hazard
in certain areas of the Rivelin Nature Trail.
Here are some examples:
environment. It is positioned at the gateway
to Sheffield on the A57 from Manchester. It
is frequented by other conservation groups
such as the CPRE and Sheffield Wildlife.
Many local walking groups often begin or
end their walks at Rivelin Corn Mill. This
will also support the aims of associations
like the Ponds Conservation Trust, Sheffield
Partnership for Rivers in Town Environments
and Don Catchment Rivers Trust.
Restoration of the footpaths around Rivelin
Park will help support the ‘The Outdoor City’
Sheffield project to encourage the public
to utilise the outdoor environment with a
view to improving public fitness and mental
health
Public bench on the footpath to Roscoe Mill
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
2. Telling local stories
The RVCG holds events throughout the
year where local stories are recorded and
members are also encouraged to write to
us and have their stories published in its
newsletter
Footpath to Roscoe Mill
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
Rivelin Corn Mill is a popular location at
the head of Rivelin Valley for parking,
walking, picnicking, pond dipping etc. It
is proposed to reprofile Rivelin Mill pond
with coarse rubble to create shallow areas
which will then hold the new silt which is
to be transferred from the smaller leading
pond. This in turn will increase waterflow
into Rivelin Mill pond particular during dryer
weather. Appropriate aquatic planting
within the pond will help create new wildlife
habitats and improve the diversity of the
3. Monitoring and evaluation
Members of the RVCG regularly walk along
the nature trail and report issues directly
to the RVCG who will either deal with the
issue of pass it to SCC if outside our remit.
The task team leadership also play an
important role in constantly monitoring its
past work for durability and effectiveness.
4. Evidencing ecosystem services
It is proposed to have a full ecological
survey at Rivelin Mill and again some time
after the creation of the Wildlife Pond to
help determine the impact on wildlife
diversity. There will also be some learning
for the RVCG from the ecologists which
will help in future plans
350 SLLP LCAP Projects

5. Community engagement
The RVCG already engages the public in
a number of ways. SLLP will help provide
the right tools and equipment for future
events such as Heritage Open Days in
September
6. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters.
The RVCG has a quarterly newsletter
where historic and modern events in
the Rivelin Valley are published. These
items are also reflected on its website
which is available to the public and the
RVCG also holds Open Meetings and
invites members of the public to attend.
All these platforms will be used to raise
awareness of SLLP and HLF
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
The RVCG is aware of its public
responsibilities as a volunteer group and will
work with and support SCC and Yorkshire
Water to help maintain the highest
standards.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
The RVCG is a voluntary body which carries
out its conservation work normally on land
owned and maintained by the Sheffield
City Council. Any work undertaken by the
RVCG is with the permission and support
of the SCC who will provide any necessary
maintenance in the future should it beyond
the RVCG’s capability
Operational
The RVCG began life in 1991 and has over
500 members with 80+ active members
helping run the organisation. Therefore
it is a long established organisation with
its primary task of maintaining the Rivelin
Valley for future generations. We are
confident that our investment and physical
effort is used wisely and effectively and
so making good use of public donations
and in agreement with the SCC which
helps agree our priorities and who monitor
the quality of our work to ensure it meets
current regulatory standards. The RVCG
campaigned strongly to have the Rivelin
Mill dam restored following the collapse
of part of the dam wall with total loss of
water. When a solution was finally agreed
with SCC, the RVCG actively helped rebuild
the dam wall and help install some of the
surrounding infrastructure and will continue
to monitor dam water level, the local
facilities and to help keep the area litter free.
Strategic
Hopefully Rivelin Corn Mill dam will
continue to exist for many years to come
for the pleasure of the public and the
crucial support of its existing wildlife at
the beginning of this important wildlife
corridor. It is an ideal location for families,
organisations and school children to
visit and learn about Rivelin Corn Mills
contribution to the industrial revolution.
Improvement of the footpaths should last
many years for the enjoyment of its passing
public
Partner’s Environmental Policy
The following has been extracted from the
RVCG webiste http://rivelinvalley.org.uk/
about.php
Introduction to RVCG
The group was formed in 1991 with the aim
to encourage the effective management of
wildlife habitats and to reverse the decline
of the nature trail over the past decade.
The Rivelin Valley is two and a half miles
long and with over 700 lime trees lining the
road making it the second longest lime tree
avenue in Britain.
SLLP LCAP Projects
351

The fast flowing river, regulated by its
constant release from moorland peat
proved ideal for powering the wheels for
the twenty mills along its course. One
of the oldest being the Hind Wheel 1581
with some still working up to the 1950’s.
Perhaps the most famous being Mousehole
Forge at Malin Bridge which produced
world famous anvils and is being carefully
restored by its present owner.
What remain are the ponds which used to
feed them and with support of the Ponds
Conservation Trust and Yorkshire Water,
the group intends to restore as many as
possible for the wildlife to inhabit and the
public to enjoy.
Risks
There is a risk that the conduit leading to
Rivelin Mill Dam may silt up as a natural
occurrence associated with the movement
of water but hopefully the Sheffield City
Council will take action to avoid loss of
Rivelin Mill pond which is has already
invested many thousands of pounds in.
Some dams in the Rivelin Valley have
already been lost due to silting up. Desilting
can be expensive and access is often
difficult for big machinery and so the RVCG
does its best to maintain even just a small
amount of water in its remaining dams to
help maintain the wildlife infstructure.
Climate Change
The RVCG tries to create and maintain an
environment that would favour most wildlife,
take care of important archaeological and
industrial features which will all help to
provide interest for the visiting public in
relative safety. Species identification will
form part of the ecological study and there
will be discussions to help ensure the right
species are selected for the locality of Rivelin
Corn Mill. The removal of invasive species is
also a priority for the RVCG who often help
actively remove them or report instances
to the SCC. There is also concern that the
Rivelin Valley is a major contributor to the
flooding along the Don Valley corridor
running through Sheffield. The RVCG are
actively looking at alternatives for slowing
down or holding back flood waters but this
does not form part of this SLLP project.
Creation of the Rivelin Mill wildlife pond
and footpath resurfacing will take place
in active public areas and therefore
special care will need to be taken to keep
the passing public safe as the RVCG will
always do anyway and has the appropriate
insurance cover
352 SLLP LCAP Projects

Supporting Local Groups
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Project Overheads 163.00 266.00 103.00 103.00 103.00
Vehicle 55.00 93.00 38.00 38.00 38.00
Travel for staff 18.00 31.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 200.00
Expenses for staff 32.00 53.75 21.75 21.75 21.75
Training budget 13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
PPE 4.50 17.50
Non recoverable VAT 2.50 34.75 32.25 32.25 32.25
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Site equipment 11,095.00 800.00 452.00 370.00
Site Officer PPE 50.00 50.00
Tools 141.00 444.00 1,450.00 587.00 4,967.00 1,600.00 400.00 867.00
Materials 942.00 1,325.25 383.25 383.25 383.25 1,325.00
Contractors 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,150.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
Professional fees 333.00 800.00 400.00 333.00
Non recoverable VAT 180.50 1,583.25 473.75 793.75 1,207.75 350.00 268.00 300.00 578.00 200.00 300.00 200.00 200.00 200.00
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer/trainne travel 90.00 155.00 65.00 65.00 65.00
Volunteer PPE 32.50 108.50 2,090.00
Volunteer training 1,195.00 2,800.00 100.00 1,000.00
Volunteer support budget 21.60 435.10 63.50 13.50 13.50 250.00 50.00 50.00
Non recoverable VAT 9.00 225.25 610.00
Funding area
Publicity and promotion 1,800.00 400.00 1,000.00 900.00
Non recoverable VAT 400.00 100.00 200.00 100.00
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
71,256.36
SLLP LCAP Projects
353

Woodland Heart
Woodlands, forestry and reservoirs are key parts of the Sheffield Lakelands. Photo credit: D. Aspinall
Lead partner
Sheffield City Council
150 word summary
The area covered by the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership is rich
in trees,woodland and forestry making
significant contribution to the aesthetics of
the landscape. The area contains over 600
Hectares of Woodland and an estimate 100
Hectares of ancient semi-natural woodland.
We will produce and deliver a landscape
scale sustainable Woodland Management
Plan for Sheffield Lakelands.
During this LCAP 2018-2023 we will work across
the partnership to directly improve natural
and cultural heritage assets in the existing
woodland estate and create a coordinated
vision and resilient plan for woodlands across
the Lakelands through to 2050.
Coordinated forestry and woodland
operations toward a diverse, resilient and
visionary approach 2018-2023.
A range of forestry and associated
woodland projects will move our woodland
estate toward a more diverse and resilient
state. Biodiversity and visual cohesion
at a landscape scale will be paramount.
The future commercial integrity of the
woodlands will be planned where possible
so as to support for future management
opportunities, unsupported by grant and
subsidises.
Woodland Gateway 1
Langsett and Stocksbridge,
Woodland Gateway 2
Ewden Valley
Woodland Gateway 3
Agden and Dale Dyke
354 SLLP LCAP Projects

Woodland Gateway 4
Redmires , Wyming Brook and Rivelin
Full project description
Woodland and forestry are dominant
habitats that shape the visual landscape
across the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
. While woodland and forestry cover form
an important mosaic across the landscape
it is the woodland associated with the
reservoirs which forms the most extensive
tracts of cover and offers greatest potential
for ‘engaged’ neighbours to develop synergy
in woodland management. In addition it is
these locations where people most visit and
experience the countryside.
The history of land use is an important
element in how the area is experienced
and appreciated. The development of
conifer plantations and their interplay
with broadleaf woodlands in the valleys,
associated with the reservoirs has created a
strong aesthetic and community sympathy.
The interplay between woodland, reservoirs,
clough and scrub woodland and the wider
countryside has created the mosaic of
habitats which help define the area and add
significantly to the biodiversity of the region.
The rotation of commercial timber
production over small areas in the valleys
brings succession in age and diversity of
species which compliments both native
woodlands and heritage stands of conifer.
The origin and management of stands of
coniferous timber is part of the business
and culture of the Sheffield Lakelands and
the management process contributes an
important habitat for Nightjar and Goshawk.
During the 1970’s and 80’s the area was well
known as the place to see goshawk (RSPB
Peak Malpractice) and although, locally,
the Goshawk has declined recently, the
presence of these birds would lead us to
consider our woodlands to be considered of
regional significance.
The three delivering partners (SCC, YW and
SRWT) have UKWAS certification. The UK
Woodland Assurance Standard (UKWAS)
is a certification standard which sets out
the requirements which woodland owners,
managers and certification authorities can
use to certify woodland management in
the United Kingdom. The standard is the
product of an inclusive and transparent
process which has involved a balanced
representation from the UK forestry and
environmental community. It has been
designed to ensure that it reflects the
requirements of the Government’s UK
Forestry Standard and through this the
guidelines adopted by European Forestry
Ministers at Helsinki in 1993 and Lisbon
in 1998. (The UK Woodland Assurance
Standard Second Edition)
Produce and deliver a landscape scale
sustainable Forest and Woodland
Management Plan for Sheffield Lakelands
for 2023 to 2050. During this LCAP 2018-
2023 we will work across the partnership to
create:
• A vision, a visual representation, for
forestry and woodland management at
a landscape scale across the Lakelands.
Retaining a suitable range of commercial
revenue generating woodland while
moving the estate toward a broader
‘ecosystem services’ led regime where the
landscape drives practice.
• Using the existing partner’s management
and forestry design plans, we will create
a tripartite management programme
around both the commercial and
conservation rich woodland. This will
include the integration of conservation
woodland into the currently dominant
coniferous plantations to link habitats and
increase landscape cohesion.
• Integrate the SLLP work on Goshawk,
Nightjar and Water Vole into woodland
management within the partnership.
SLLP LCAP Projects
355

• Include the work SLLP is undertaking
on Gateways and Archaeology into the
forestry operations plans across the
partnership.
• Communicate to the community the
history, evolution and future of our
woodland vision.
• Outreach both the vision and the
partner’s delivery plans to other woodland
and landowners with a view to delivering
a coordinated woodland and forestry
management regime from 2023 through
to 2050.
Mapping and communication
During years 1 & 2 we will engage a
combination of forestry consultants,
Ecologists and GIS map specialists to
create a woodland vision for the Sheffield
Lakelands and identify additional forestry
and woodland owners/managers who
may participate in a combined sustainable
woodland project with biodiversity and
connectivity outcomes as a priority.
Project partners will use this information
to create a ‘local story’ regarding the
evolution of woodland around the reservoirs
in particular and the developing vision
for woodland management across the
Lakelands. This information will be part
of how we bring the community with
us during this work. The ‘added value’
budget will prioritise communications
and community engagement through
interpretation over physical improvements.
In year 3 we will undertake a ‘woodland
product and market assessment’, which in
year 4 will result in a vision and business
plan for the ongoing (post 2023) Landscape
Forestry Management Plan to be delivered
by the partnership.
Our vision will Map overall tree retention,
planting and natural regeneration
‘opportunity’ at a broad level and propose
areas for buffering and / connectivity
to support the aspirations detailed in
the report ‘Making Space for Nature -
The Lawton Report (2010) (England)’,
and to compliment opportunities for
Natural Flood Management together
with the identification or suitability for
Forest/Woodland Creation Grants under
Countryside Stewardship. Working closely
with the Protecting Sheffield project team
and Environment Agency.
Working with partners and the Community
Ecologist with support from the Practical
and Volunteer Officer will develop a
‘partnership’ approach to ‘community
scale’ woodland management of converted
compartments and broadleaf woodlands in
order to create a sustainable income source
for ongoing management.
It is here that the synergistic work of the
Landscape Partnership will make the
greatest contributions, in particular the bat
survey, mapping and modelling project will
supply targeted locations and prescriptions
for woodland creation and connectivity.
HLF contribution required £23,000
Conifer to Broadleaf
Our long term commitment within the
woodland heart vision will be for a dynamic
and cohesive combination of ancient seminatural
woodlands, re-established native
woodlands, resilient woodlands of mixed
species, heritage conifer and broadleaf
stands and rotational commercial forestry.
Within this plan we will replace a number
of conifer forestry coupes with mixed and
broadleaf woodland habitats when the
opportunity arises.
SCC, YW and SRWT woodland
compartments which have limited
commercial value (taking into account
the cost and constraints of extraction,
markets etc.) have been mapped and
targeted for management, with the view
356 SLLP LCAP Projects

for long term retention as non-commercial
conservation woodland and achieving the
none-financial benefits that can be accrued
from woodlands. As they are moved from
commercial forestry the partnership will
endeavour to create ‘sustainable’ woodland
management and inclusion within a
joint (partnership) approach to whatever
woodland management schemes arise
post-BREXIT.
Because this element of the project
effectively removes commercial forestry
from these compartments and replaces
it with non-commercial, conservation
broadleaf woodlands (where any future
income generated from them will be reinvested
directly back into woodland). Any
income generated during felling will be
reinvested into this work. All elements of the
work can be funded by HLF and all other
expenditure incurred can be included as
match funding.
Actions that can be funded under this
option can include:
1. Infrastructure (stacking areas, rides,
bridges) required for clear fell,
2. Clear fell and extraction,
3. Habitat creation (groundworks, stream
modification etc.),
4. Replanting, fencing and tree protection,
5. Post planting management up to the end
of the LCAP period.
Impacting the commercial crop through
diversification and resilience
Forestry as a commercial operation, a
means by which we can sustain a continued
mosaic of important habitats, from
clearfelled coupes which offer nesting
sites for Nightjar through to stands of
mature predominant coniferous forestry for
supporting Goshawk will remain important
to the partnership. Our opportunity as
land managers is to maximise diversity
and resilience throughout the Sheffield
Lakelands.
Within woodland compartments where
there remains an economic driver, options for
long-term ‘resilience’ have been identified.
Exemption note:
The commercial forestry options outlined
under “Managing commercial forestry
for resilience” in line with the Forestry
Commissions Advice “Adapting England’s
woodland to be more diverse – conifers and
exotic broadleaves” may be undertaken
but cannot be funded by HLF. These are
commercial opportunities based around
protecting business to create income and
revenue and are not wholly directed toward
cultural or natural heritage outcomes..
Resilience work will include:
1. Clearing conifer crop trees from
significant trees (haloing thinning),
usually broadleaves that are a legacy
from previous land management and
water courses within existing coupes not
destined for clearfell during the LCAP
period,
2. Managing water courses for wildlife, water
quality and natural flood management,
3. Broadleaf planting ‘in-plantation copses’
stream corridors, rides and plantation
edges,
4. Fencing to protect re-planting where this
relates to non-economic forestry planting,
5. Planting a range of tree species, principally
broadleaf and native shrub species
throughout commercial replanting to
diversify and broaden the overall woodland
resilience (note only the non-commercial
species planting can be funded.).
Influencing commercial crop management
By integrating forestry management within
SLLP LCAP Projects
357

a Lakeland Partnership we will not just
‘exclude’ commercial compartments as this
would create a two tier forestry regime.
While our ‘vision’ will include woodland
and forestry across all ownership in the
Sheffield Lakelands our 2023-2050 cohesive
management plan will cover all forestry
within the partnership.
The widest ‘woodland / forestry
consideration will be required when the
Landscape Partnership reviews and makes
prescriptions for the support of key bird
species; Goshawk and Nightjar. How the
more ‘commercial’ forestry compartments
are managed will be reviewed and a
cooperative approach to their management
will mean that partners work together
to ensure there are sufficient habitat
maintained across the Lakeland each year.
Restructure and thinning to conservation
conifer and broadleaf woodland
A range of coupes which have been planted
with conifers and are no longer considered
of commercial importance but do not lend
themselves to clearfell and reversion to
broadleaf woodland so will be developed
as heritage coupes. A diverse range of trees
will be accepted into these area, developing
resilience, visual and biodiversity. These
include; relatively narrow strips beside the
reservoirs often with public access where
the ‘majestic’ mature trees form part of the
aesthetic value of the area, and locations
such as the centre of Rivelin where clearfell
serves no purpose and the aesthetic and
wildlife value of retaining the forestry
beyond commercial lifespan has been
identified.
Veteran and notable trees
As the Woodland Heart project moves
existing conifer plantations toward broadleaf
and higher conservation value woodlands
the notable trees will be identified and
protected. Information on the notable trees
will be passed to the woodland archaeology
project to assist them in reading the
landscape and included in woodland
management prescriptions.
Some forestry sites were surveyed during
the development phase in order to give
SLLP an insight into the expected level of
veteran and significant trees which remain
within the forestry compartments (Vet Tree
Report Fountains). While no veteran trees
were identified there was a good number of
old, pre-plantation trees identified.
Where sites have not been surveyed
the Community Ecologist will survey of
significant trees before felling operations
commence.
358 SLLP LCAP Projects

Practical work, The Woodland Gateways
The 4 Woodland Gateways identified in the
project area have been identified with a
series of actions for each area identified in
Table 1, attached with maps to show what is
planned for each area.
WOODLAND GATEWAY 1
Langsett, Midhopel, Underbank and
Stocksbridge
Restructure and thinning to conservation
conifer and broadleaf woodland
Create three felling coups to manage
the woodland using continuous cover
techniques. Complimentary planting of
mixed broadleaved species;
Cherry, sweet chestnut, lime, Sessile oak, field
maple, hawthorn, holly.
(Compartments 135a3, 137a1).
HLF contribution £0
Veteran trees
Identify and protect veteran and significant
trees.
Broadleaf:
The Langsett, Midhope and Underbank
areas are dominated by Yorkshire Water
land holdings. Further down the valley in
the Stocksbridge area the more traditional
broadleaf woodlands fall under the
responsibility of Sheffield City Council
including Fox Glen and Newhall Woods and
Pothouse Wood which are owned privately.
Forestry:
In terms of the Woodland Heart project the
priorities for spend with be in terms of ‘adding
value’ to ancient and semi-natural woodlands
all 5 woodlands listed will also be managed
to improve certain woodland bird species
like Willow Tit and Flycatchers. Improvements
in Broadleaved Woodlands will be carried
out by the Steel Valley Project and these
are described in project 7a Woodland Heart
Broadleaf woodland management.
WOODLAND GATEWAY 2
Ewden Valley
A separate project has been created for the
land around Midhope Reservoir in order to
create a nature reserve, in addition Yorkshire
Water is working closely with the ‘working
with water’ project in Langsett. Therefore
the Woodland Heart Gateway 1 plantations
included within this project are restricted to
Underbank. Work will include:
Conifer to Broadleaf
7.75 hectares of conifer planting to mixed
broadleaved woodland (compartments 136a5,
136a7, 136a8, 136a12, 136a13, 136a14, 136a15).
HLF Contribution £0
The Ewden Valley is one of the quieter valleys
in the Lakeland area of Sheffield dominated
by Broomhead and More Hall reservoirs.
SLLP LCAP Projects
359

Blocks of conifer forests were planted
around 70 years ago to create a landscape
which complimented the water companies’
objectives to supply Sheffield with clean
water. The vast majority of plantations are
under the management of Sheffield City
Council with Yorkshire Water managing
strips of planting around the reservoir. All
the compartments are included in Forestry
Commission funded Design Plans and
both landowners have Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC) accreditation.
Trusts nature reserve at Carr House Meadows
and around the Raynor Clough area.
HLF contribution £12,000
WOODLAND GATEWAY 3
Agden and Dale Dyke
The Agden and Dale Dyke part of the
Economy of scale and added Value
As part of the forestry operations around
More Hall Reservoir three will be a need
to create a stacking area. This cannot be
funded by HLF but as there is demand
for car parking in this area we propose to
convert the stacking are to a parking area,
top dress surface, construct and entrance
and information point.
HLF contribution £21,000
Impacting the commercial crop through
diversification and resilience
Areas (Compartments 2, 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15)
have been identified where buffer strips
and planting adjacent to stream courses
would improve bio-diversity and ensure
the landscape remains resilient to climate
change and water collection objectives.
Removal of species like Larch may reduce
the impact and spread of Phytopthora.
Future planting of more resilient trees will
also be carried out.
HLF contribution £6,000
Conifer to Broadleaf
A number of ‘uneconomic blocks’ of
conifer that could be transformed to more
broadleaved woodlands which improve
bio-diversity and recreational potential have
been identified (Compartments 09a,b,d,
11b,c,d). This will be to the Eastern end of
More Hall reservoir adjacent to the Wildlife
Lakeland area offer a unique landscape for
quiet recreation centred around the nature
reserve at Agden Reservoir. The woodland
and forestry plantations are under the
ownership of Sheffield City Council with
Yorkshire Water managing strips around the
reservoir. Agden Reservoir Nature Reserve
is managed through a lease from Yorkshire
Water to the Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust.
As part of the SCC Forest Design Plan a
decision has been made to move conifer
plantations over to a more mixed continuous
cover management approach with a focus
on broadleaves.
Several commercial blocks will be retained
however there are a number of Plantations
on Ancient Woodland sites (PAWS) which
will be moved toward to the traditional
clough woodlands which is a key objective
of the landscape partnership for this area.
Due to the bio-diverse nature of the
reservoir and its surrounding catchment the
focus for the area is nature conservation and
quiet recreation. The nearby Dow House
Plantation will also be restored to broadleaf
woodland.
360 SLLP LCAP Projects

Conifer to Broadleaf
During this LCAP two uneconomic blocks
of conifer that will be transformed to more
broadleaved woodlands which improve
bio-diversity and recreational potential have
been identified (Compartments 21a, 26a).
This will be to the Eastern side of Agden
reservoir at Rocher End and Windy Bank
adjacent to the Wildlife Trusts nature reserve
HLF contribution £12,000
Impacting the commercial crop through
diversification and resilience
Areas (Compartments 146a2, 146a4, 149a10)
have been identified where buffer strips
and planting adjacent to stream courses
will improve biodiversity and ensure the
landscape remains resilient to climate
change and water collection objectives.
HLF contribution £6,550
WOODLAND GATEWAY 4
Redmires, Wyming Brook and Rivelin
which requires careful management. Land
management is shared between Sheffield
City Council mainly at Redmires and the
lower Rivelin Valley, Yorkshire Water at
Rivelin and Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust at Wyming Brook and Fox
Hagg.
In terms of forest and woodland
management the focus for SCC is around
Redmires Camp and Rivelin Valley. While
for SRWT it is Wyming Brook and Fox Hagg
and Yorkshire Water is Rivelin Dams, several
small compartments require management
at Rivelin for SCC.
One key project is works in the Redmires
Camp site of a former Second World War
Prisoner of War Camp. This links into several
other interrelated projects around dry stone
walling heritage and interpretation.
Economy of scale and added value
There is potential for getting ‘added value’
from Heritage Lottery Funding in terms of
communications and information, access
improvements and interpretation.
HLF contribution £20,000
Conifer to Broadleaf and creating Heritage
Stands
The overarching aim for our woodland and
forestry vision is to create a single, cohesive
management regime for Rivelin. This project
presents a range of forestry and woodland
management issues around access on
steep slopes and weak bridges and limited
opportunities for stacking areas.
This part of the Lakeland area offers a mixed
range of forest, woodland and heathland
habitats and recreational opportunities
A number of blocks of conifer
(Compartments 158a,2,3, 52a,b, 590) that
could be transformed to heritage stands
and broadleaved woodlands which improve
bio-diversity and recreational potential have
been identified. This will be to the North
and South of Rivelin reservoir and Redmires
Camp to the east of Redmires reservoir
HLF contribution
£126,700
Impacting the commercial crop through
diversification and resilience
Areas (Compartments 588, 178a-190a,
589,a,b,c,e) have been identified where
buffer strips and planting adjacent to stream
SLLP LCAP Projects
361

courses would improve biodiversity and
ensure the landscape remains resilient
to climate change and water collection
objectives.
HLF contribution £32,250
Skyline or bridging
Around Agden reservoir and across the
Rivelin site there are areas of extremely
steep conifer plantations which are included
in the works descriptions above. At present
it is not possible to determine the exact
method of timber extraction for these sites
as this is partially dependent upon weather
conditions. As such three is a budget of
£10,000 set aside for the hire of specialist
plant (bridging or skylining equipment)
HLF contribution £10,000
Supporting documents
• SCC - Forest Design Plans
• Yorkshire Water Design Plans
• Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Management Plans
• Consultants reports from Ian Kennedy
and
• Alastair Williston
• Fountains veteran tree survey
• Adapting England’s woodlands to be
more resilient https://www.forestry.gov.uk/
england-resilience
• Tool to plan for woodland resilience
https://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/beeh-apshfk
• Natural England’s Strategic Direction -
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/432726/ne-strategic-direction.pdf
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• Steel Valley Project Stocksbridge
• Rivelin Valley Conservation Group
• South Yorkshire Archaeology Service (and
partners)
• Contractors and partners delivering
Supporting Species
• Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
• Bradfield Parish Council
• Wadsley and Loxley Commoners
• Members of the Sheffield Local Access
Forum (ramblers , horse riders ,cyclists etc)
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
The project contributes to a major part of
the vision of the landscape partnership;
it will bring together the main forest and
woodland owners to bring synergy and a
holistic approach to forest and woodland
management. The project will build resilience
through new planting of broadleaf woodlands
and improve access opportunities.
Strategic fit
The Lawton Report – (importance
of managing on a landscape scale /
connectivity / buffers/ stepping stones and
corridors)
Contribute to the Water Framework
Directive- Increased areas of broadleaved
planting and improved margins and
watercourses will be planted and additional
tree planting will all help to improve water
quality and store flood water
The Sheffield Waterways Strategy – City of
Rivers
The Outdoor City Strategy- Has identified a
number of ‘Gateways’ in the Lakeland area.
362 SLLP LCAP Projects

Access and recreation opportunities which
will be improved in these areas as part of
the Lakeland Project
Protecting Sheffield from Flooding Project-
Looking at the role that Natural Flood
Management can play in the Lakeland area
UKWAS –United Kingdom Woodland
Assurance Scheme
All the major landowners are accredited by
the Forest Stewardship Council and comply
with UKWAS standards
Forestry Commission-The Lakeland Project
will contribute greatly to the Forestry
Commissions policy
‘England’s trees, woods and forests are
a vital national asset providing multiple
economic, social and environmental
benefits.
Our objective is to enable the forestry sector
to protect, improve and expand this asset so
that these benefits can be maximised now
and maintained for the future. Our forestry
policy is therefore based on resilience.
This means a forestry sector and woodland
resource that keeps growing and providing
these multiple benefits, despite threats such
as pests and diseases and climate change,
without requiring more government
intervention’.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
1. A more connected and resilient landscape.
A better managed woodland and
forestry estate will put it in a far more
stronger position to stand up to the
challenges of threats to bio-security and
climate change. Unproductive forestry
compartments will be transformed to
more bio-diverse broadleaved blocks
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife.
The holistic management of the
woodland and forestry will complement
the other strands of the Lakeland bid
by including improvements where
appropriate for recreation balanced
with the need to protect vulnerable and
sensitive sites. The access gateways areas
compliment the 4 woodland gateway
areas and each will have it’s own small
scale plan for resolving the multiple
objectives of the project including forestry
, woodland and habitat management ,
recreation , conservation and heritage
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors.
All woodland and forestry sites which
will be subjected to management works
will have a level of recording in terms
of ecology, archaeology and from a
recreational perspective. Dry stone walls
will also be restored in many sites and art
and story telling will bring the cultural
heritage side, for example Redmires
Camp
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy.
A vision for woodlands in the Landscape
will be created, this will be supported by
a range of practical interventions that
demonstrate the vision developing.
The adaptation and inclusion of
management for key species, Goshawk, bats
(as a group), nightjar, water vole will help
people better understand the relationship
between the wildlife they want to see and
the management of landscape.
The archaeological and heritage projects
will draw from each of the gateway areas
and local heritage will be safeguarded and
promoted appropriately. Local groups will
be better engaged.
SLLP LCAP Projects
363

HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
Our woodland heritage will be better
managed as 4 square kilometres of forestry
and woodland (the entirety of SCC, YW and
SRWT woodland sites considered here?) will
have one cohesive management in place
36 Ha of Forest Compartments will be
converted to broadleaf woodland 50 Ha
of broadleaf planting will occur as part of
forestry resilience work and will be in better
condition for both people and wildlife.
40 veteran or notable tree recorded and
protected
Other recording and survey work will be
carried out through the supporting species
programme.
Outcomes for communities
Negative environmental impacts will be
reduced
your local area/community will be a better
place to live, work and visit
Creating a vision and management plan
for the entire woodland/forestry estate
will result in a better understanding of our
landscape, much of the estate is open to
the public and this project will create more
attractive places to visit. It will also result in
a clearer message as to what woodlands
and forests are accessible for what reason
and why access is discouraged in others.
Consents required
From public bodies
Forestry design plans have been approved
by statutory bodies. There will be a
requirement for additional agreements for
stacking areas etc.
Planning permission
The partnership does not believe planning
permission will be required for any
described works.
This project involves a significant move of
emphasis for forestry management from
commercial crop to conservation value:
Nearly 90 ha of forestry and woodland will
be managed for the environment rather
than gain
A coordinated forestry plan, initiated during
the 2018-23 programme and continuing
through the 2023-50 plan will result in
reduced duplication of effort and damage
to the environment.
more people and a wider range of people
will have engaged with heritage
The Sheffield Lakeland forestry and
woodland vision will be used to reach
out to other landowner managers to help
encourage them to also coordinate their
woodland management.
Rivelin. Clearfell of low biodiversity conifers
364 SLLP LCAP Projects

Commercial forestry operations will continue but will be better coordinated and the needs
of sensitive species, people and the landscape will be taken into account.
Clearfell with broadleaf replanting
Rivelin river. Thinning and clearfell to support
restoration of semi-natural broadleaf and mixed
woodlands throughout the Sheffield Lakeland
Rivelin. Transforming the woodlands of the Sheffield Lakelands while retaining the landscape excitement.
SLLP LCAP Projects
365

Commercial forestry will retain mosaic and offer
important habitats
Post clearfell resilience planting will be native
broadleaf with nfm measures
Non-commercial forestry and woodland areas will have
‘community woodland’ management plans.
Resilience felling of conifer along streams to be
replanted with native broadleafs
366 SLLP LCAP Projects

We will inform people not only of the benefit of forestry and woodlands but of the differing needs and
opportunities we will be creating.
(example from Churnet Valley © Mike Shurmer RSPB). We will create a Sheffield Lakeland Woodland Vision,
supported by a combined management prescription and design plan 2023 2050.
SLLP LCAP Projects
367

Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
1. The Woodland Heart Project overlaps with
multiple other projects including;-
2. Gateways to the Landscape- A significant
amount of public access improvements
will achieved
3. Restoring the Lattice- A significant length
of drystone wall will be repaired
4. The Hidden History- Stories will be
explored and linked to the heritage of
the river valleys in terms of the mills that
powered the industrial revolution and the
camps erected at Redmires for the 1st and
2nd World Wars
5. The supporting species project will
contribute valuable knowledge to inform
forestry management in the Lakelands.
We have a wide range of habitat
improvement projects, including; wildlife
sites, nature reserves, supporting local
groups and working with water, between
them we are creating a joined up
landscape.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
11. Priority species recovery
This project will be directed and
managed in order to maximise the
restoration of Goshawk in the Sheffield
Lakelands.
12. Telling local stories
13. Digital landscape (i.e. using technology)
14. Monitoring and evaluation The success
of this project beyond 2023 will be a key
outcome from the existing LCAP and will
form part of the measurement regarding
legacy.
15. Evidencing ecosystem services
16. Community engagement
17. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters.
This is a flagship project for SLLP, how
we explain out goals and achievements
regarding this project will be an
opportunity to demonstrate the value of
HLF as a landscape driver for change.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
Each partner will require biosecurity
procedures but as most sites in this project
will already have public access these will be
quite low-key.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
The sustainable woodland management
plan 2023-50 is a key M&E outcome for this
entire programme (2018-23).
Partner’s Environmental Policy
Supplied elsewhere for each partner.
Risks
After investing in excess of £200,000
the HLF does not see the creation of
a sustainable approach to woodland
management by the partnership that not
only results in long-term biodiversity and
community leisure gains but also creates
the basis for a financially self-sustaining
project for continued partnership
management in the Lakelands. This will
reflect very poorly upon the record of
participating partners.
We will manage this by working throughout
the LCAP Period 2018-23 toward a vision and
business model.
All work will be subject to the necessary
approvals of statuary bodies and
compliance checks. Therefore there is
368 SLLP LCAP Projects

some slight risk as we will be reliant on
other agencies eg. Forestry Commission
and planning permission in the PDNPA for
access routes etc. To mitigate the second
element (Planning Permission) no work
requiring PP will be carried out in year one
with the PDNPA engaged from an early
stage in design and delivery plans for works
requiring PP from the outset.
Climate Change
This is a classic ‘climate mitigation and
adaptation project:
We are looking to connect and improve
habitats in order to permit the better
movement of species (both N/S and
lowland/highland), which we will be able to
evaluate through our bat project.
The planting of currently limited species
conifer forestry with a wider variety of
species will create more robust and
resilient woodlands better able as a unit to
withstand changes resulting from climate
change.
SLLP LCAP Projects
369

Woodland Heart (Steel Valley Project elements)
Lead partner
The project will be run by the Steel Valley
Project and overseen by Sheffield City
Council Parks & Countryside who own the
land and are a strategic partner in the SLLP.
150 word summary
Sheffield City Council broadleaf woodlands
in the Upper Don Valley provide a space
for recreation, enabling the community
to gain associated health benefits, as well
as proving a place for wildlife to thrive in
a mosaic of steep wooded river valleys or
cloughs.
This project aims to improve selected SCC
woodlands for wildlife, enable easier and
wider public access, as well as interpreting
the heritage of these varied woodland sites.
The project will involve work which will
mainly be carried out by volunteers under
the guidance, support and training of SVP
staff. Community involvement will be key
to safeguarding these sites for the future
and this project will aim to provide a lasting
legacy of infrastructure, wildlife habitats and
interpretation, which will help people to
engage with these woodlands.
Full project description
Birks Wood
Birks Wood is a small ancient woodland
situated in Oughtibridge off Birch Grove.
There is an informal circular signed route
through the wood, however this traverses
the natural terrain and is difficult to
negotiate.
370 SLLP LCAP Projects

The proposed work consists of access
improvements: taking the current 500
metre long informal route and surfacing
it and constructing boardwalks across the
wettest areas of path to enable safe an easy
access for a wider range of users. This work
would be carried out using match funding
from Section 106 funds.
There is a waterlogged area near the
entrance to the site, which would be
excavated to create a pond. A pond dipping
platform would be installed to enable local
schools (particularly Oughtibridge Primary
School) to use the site for environmental
education sessions.
Glen Howe Park
Glen Howe has a fascinating history and
was used in the late 1800s as a destination
to bring children from the city to take in the
countryside and pleasure gardens. It was
gifted to the people of Sheffield in 1917 and
has elements of both a Victorian parkland
and ancient woodland site, with the edges
between the two becoming indistinct over
the years.
The project would create a new pond to
provide increased habitat diversity. This will
also have added natural flood management
outcomes, slowing the flow of water into the
Upper Don catchment.
The Grade II listed packhorse bridge which
was re-located from More Hall during
the construction of the reservoir, will be
interpreted through an on-site interpretation
panel. Stocksbridge History Society and
SVP will provide archive information to
contribute towards its design.
Invasive species on the site- rhododendron
and holly would be managed to provide a
more natural habitat with increased ground
flora and species diversity whilst retaining
the areas of Victorian planting, which give
the site its unique character.
Pot House Wood
Pot House Wood, named from the nearby,
long converted to housing, Bolsterstone
Glass works, is an ancient woodland
adjacent to Stocksbridge Nursery & Infant
School.
SVP has been improving willow tit habitat
on the site as part of a previous project. This
project will include work to link two of the
previous project sites- Pot House Wood and
New Hall Wood, to assist movement and
dispersal of this red listed bird species.
Invasive species on the site- Himalayan
Balsam and Japanese knotweed would be
cleared, improving ground flora diversity
and priority habitat for willow tit around
areas of willow carr woodland.
Woodland management would be
undertaken to remove larch and ash,
allowing natural regeneration of the ground
flora and native tree species to occur,
increasing biodiversity and extending
suitable willow tit habitat.
New Hall Wood
New Hall Wood is an ancient woodland site,
with a public park adjoining it. It was gifted
to the people of Stocksbridge by Thomas
Oxley, a fruit farmer for the purposes of a
public park.
The project is supported by the recent
stakeholder and public consultation work
carried out by Sheffield University, which
has outlined a future vision for the park,
including infrastructure improvements,
which will be undertaken as part of this
project.
Improvements to the path network would
be carried out, including the surfacing of
500 meters of footpath and the installation
of steps on steep slopes to improve
access. Fencing would also be installed to
prevent access where required adjacent
to the new route. Two new ‘Run Routes’
SLLP LCAP Projects
371

would be created, with way-marking, trail
head interpretation and online marketing
and information through the Outdoor
City website. Four benches would be
installed to provide resting points for
both runners and other users of the park
and woodland, improving accessibility to
those with mobility difficulties. The access
improvements would be funded by Section
106 funding in conjunction with HLF funds.
A community orchard would be planted,
involving members of the local community
in tree planting activities supervised by
SVP and assisted by SVP volunteers. An
interpretation panel and bench would be
constructed close to the orchard, allowing
visitors to learn about the history of the site
as a fruit farm. Stocksbridge History Society
would help to provide information for the
interpretation panel, including archive
photos of the fruit farm.
The site is home to willow tits and SVP
would improve habitat connectivity
between New Hall Wood and Pot House
Wood, providing suitable habitat through
tree management and planting, improving
wildlife corridors.
Supporting documents
• SCC woodland management plans
• Sheffield Live- Oxley Park Vision
• Stocksbridge History Society archive
documents
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• Sheffield City Council will be overseeing
the work that is carried out by SVP and
will have management responsibility after
the delivery of the project is complete.
• Stocksbridge History Society will
contribute towards the historical
information to be used in the production
of the on-site interpretation.
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
Stocksbridge Leisure Centre will help to
involve members of the local community
in Oxley Park and the projects there,
particularly the community orchard and
‘Run Routes’.
Local schools will benefit from the access
work and creation of the pond and dipping
platform due to be installed in Birks Wood,
allowing them to carry out environmental
education sessions.
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
The project focuses around broadleaf
clough woodlands which will be made
more resilient through improved vegetation
composition, including the removal of
non-native invasive species and species
susceptible to disease, such as ash and larch.
The project will make a huge step forward
in improving access to the Sheffield City
Council woodlands in the Upper Don valley
through the surfacing of footpaths, waymarking
and marketing of two new run
routes.
The project will improve the woodlands
sites’ ability to support wildlife through
careful habitat management, including the
red listed willow tit.
Natural flood management will be
improved with the creation of two new
ponds, increasing water storage on these
sites and slowing the flow back into the Don
catchment, working towards reducing peak
flows on a small scale but in synergy with
the wider NFM work planned in the SLLP.
The practical work that will be carried out
will enable many volunteering opportunities,
engaging the local community in woodland
management and contributing towards
improved health outcomes for project
participants.
372 SLLP LCAP Projects

Strategic fit
The Lawton Report – improving habitat
connectivity between two woodland sites
for willow tits.
The Outdoor City Strategy 2015-
‘Infrastructure to support a quality
experience’- this project will contribute
towards improved infrastructure to enable
access to the outdoors, including 2 new ‘run
routes which will be promoted through the
Outdoor City website.
The Move More Plan 2015- ‘Empowered
Communities’ and ‘active environments’-
this project will engage volunteers in their
environment encouraging them to be active
in the outdoors and involve in woodland
management, leading to positive health
outcomes.
Green and Open Space Strategy 2010-
‘Green connections for people and
wildlife’- this project will contribute towards
improved habitat connectivity between
lowland and upland habitats and provide
improved access for people.
Contribute to the Water Framework
Directive, The Sheffield Waterways Strategy
– City of Rivers, Protecting Sheffield from
Flooding Project- This project will contribute
towards natural flood management through
the creation of new ponds, with the capacity
to slow the flow of water into the Don
catchment.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
1. A more connected and resilient landscape.
Improved connections between woodland
sites and increased capacity for flood
resilience.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors.
Better understood heritage through
work with the local history society and
engagement of the community through
volunteering.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy.
Better interpreted features, allowing
visitors to learn about the heritage of their
woodlands and more opportunities for
volunteering and recreation.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
The woodlands will be better managed
identified andrecorded:
- 4 broadleaf woodlands will be improved
- 2 new ponds created
- 18 metres of fencing will be installed
- 2 new interpretation panels for heritage
- 1 new interpretation panel for recreation
- 1 Grade II listed structure interpreted
- 1 website will be improved
Outputs for people
20 people will have volunteered their time,
developed skills and learned about heritage.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife.
Improved public access and woodland
habitats.
SLLP LCAP Projects
373

Outcomes for communities
Natural flood management will be
improved, with woodlands being more
resilient to flooding and slowing the flow of
water into the Don catchment.
20 volunteers will have engaged with
woodland management, learning new skills
and about the wildlife and history of the
sites.
Our local area/community will be a better
place to live, work and visit through
improved access to woodlands including 2
new run routes constructed, way-marked
and promoted. Woodlands will be better
managed for people and wildlife.
The Grade II listed pack horse bridge at Glen Howe Park
has a fascinating story which will be told through on-site
interpretation
Consents required
In place Y / N
From public bodies
Permission from Sheffield City Council is
required, they are a strategic partner in the
SLLP and will be responsible for arranging
permissions.
Photographs
Ideal willow tit habitat in Pot House Wood. Links
between willow tit habitat in Pot House Wood and New
Hall Wood will improve habitat connectivity for this
severely declined species.
Birks Wood, where access will be significantly improved
on this currently challenging site.
Informal routes will be improved and formalised,
developing two new ‘Run Routes’ to be constructed, waymarked
and promoted through the Outdoor City website.
374 SLLP LCAP Projects

Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
1. Woodland Heart- This project is part of
a wider programme of SCC woodland
projects and will contribute to the
overall better management, access and
biodiversity of the SCC woodland estate
within the SLLP project area.
2. Natural Flood Management- Through the
construction of new ponds, the project
will contribute towards and compliment
the NFM project, slowing the flow of
water into the Upper Don catchment and
contribute towards flood mitigation.
3. Priority Species Recovery- The willow
tit is a severely declining species, with
a population in the project area. It is
key to safeguard this population of this
red listed species and targeted habitat
management and linking of habitat
through the management of wildlife
corridors will be a key part of this project.
4. Hidden history- The archaeology of the
project sites is varied and it is hoped
that more can be discovered about the
woodlands past, which may inform the
Woodland Heart project and how it is
progressed. The project includes heritage
interpretation, including information on a
Grade II listed bridge.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
1. Priority species recovery
Willow tit habitat will be improved and
connectivity increased.
2. Telling local stories
Interpretation for the Glen Howe Park
bridge and the Oxley Park fruit farm will
tell these fascinating local stories.
3. Digital landscape (i.e. using technology)
The two new run routes in Oxley Park
will include online information on the
Outdoor City website.
4. Monitoring and evaluation
Feedback will be sought from volunteers
who participate in the project to assess
their engagement.
5. Evidencing ecosystem services
Natural flood management outcomes
will be derived from the installation of
new ponds. Woodland management will
enable plants and trees to provide carbon
sequestration and clean air.
6. Community engagement
Volunteers will be engaged throughout
the practical projects and members of the
community will be involved in planting
the community orchard at Oxley Park.
On site interpretation and marketing will
further engage the community.
7. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters.
SVP website, the Outdoor City website,
social media and local press will all be
utilised to promote the project.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
When undertaking practical work, SVP
staff, volunteers and contractors will clean
PPE and equipment to prevent the transfer
of diseases, spores and seeds to contain
potential biohazards.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
None required
SLLP LCAP Projects
375

Operational
Sheffield City Council are the landowner
and will maintain the features that will be
built during the course of the project.
Strategic
The project will create better infrastructure
for members of the public to be able to
enjoy recreation in SCC woodlands. Sites
will be better understood by members of
the community and they will have been
able to contribute to their management,
giving them a sense of ownership.
Partner’s Environmental Policy
Steel Valley Project’s Environmental Policy
is attached.
Risks
Lack of volunteer support- this will be
mitigated by SVPs volunteer recruitment
and support, including providing
transportation for volunteers to this remote
site.
Climate Change
Natural flood management outcomes
will be derived from the installation of
new ponds, mitigating against extreme
flood events. Woodland management will
enable plants and trees to provide carbon
sequestration and clean air.
Effective woodland management and the
improvement of wildlife corridors from
lowland habitats to upland habitats will
enable species to be more resilient to
climate change.
376 SLLP LCAP Projects

Woodland Heart
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Skyline or Bridging 5000 5000
Tools 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84
Materials 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501 501
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Contractors 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 575 575
21000
62000
14000
36000
6550
20000
168700
52250
Professional fees 2000
2000
2000
2000
3000 3000
Non recoverable VAT 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer/trainne travel 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Volunteer PPE 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
Volunteer training 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122
Volunteer support budget 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Non recoverable VAT 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39
Funding area
Publicity and promotion
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
460360
SLLP LCAP Projects
377

Working With Water – slowing the flow and improving water quality
Sketch showing opportunity to
create wet woodland and protect
riparian strip from livestock at Sick
Brook, holding more water in the
landscape and reducing soil erosion
and localised pollution
Lead partner
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
150 word summary
Natural flood management (NFM), water
quality improvement and habitat and
species conservation can go hand in hand.
This project aims to demonstrate this in the
field.
We have identified 13 important small sites
with local farmers and landowners for
habitat interventions which will address
water quality and flood risk issues. We will
increase connectivity and secure habitats
(including tackling non-native plant species)
throughout the area. While addressing a
broad range of habitats, there are specific
targets around:
• Heathland and grassland mosaics
• Woodland planting
• Enhancing watercourses and wetland
creation
All habitat plans and interventions will
reference the importance of the area
for water quality and natural flood
management; bogs, flushes, streams,
reservoirs and rivers that flow through this
landscape are a network for nature.
In addition we have identified a catchment
laboratory which will allow us to carry out
designed and measurable procedures to
gain quantitative information to support the
importance of NFM.
Full project description
Many of the SLLP headwaters are of high
biodiversity value, with good quality
habitats (SSSI/SPA/SAC moorlands) and
natural features. North-south connectivity
is good as the moorlands themselves form
an important landscape-scale feature but
connectivity downslope to the east could
be better especially where agriculture
is prevalent. This project will try and
address this by enhancing and buffering
watercourses and promoting the use
of woodland copses to act as corridors/
stepping stones within the landscape.
378 SLLP LCAP Projects

Headwaters
The headwaters remain comparatively
untouched by issues impacting the
larger rivers below, providing refuges for
endangered species such as white-clawed
crayfish and water vole. The headwaters
offer the best opportunities to enhance
a wide range of important species
and habitats. It is important to tackle
watercourse issues from the source in order
to achieve the most effective results.
NFM
This project is aligned with the Environment
Agency natural flood management
opportunity maps and The Sheffield
City Council (Arup) flood mapping. We
will use these mapping tools to help
guide our initiative both by targeting the
most appropriate locations for practical
interventions and also as a visual aid to
demonstrate the potential impacts to
landowners and farmers.
As both the EA and Arup mapping tools are
new and our practical project can use them
from the outset. We have partnered with
Sheffield Hallam University to develop and
deliver a comprehensive physical monitoring
and evaluation project to help us determine
both the effectiveness of these tools and the
ability of third party organisations, such as
Wildlife Trusts and farmers, to implement
effective interventions using them.
A Farm Liaison Officer and dedicated ‘NFM’
Ecologist Project Manager have identified
locations and developed plans for habitat
and NFM interventions. We will implement
a range of interventions (via contract and
through partners):
Projects
The following project sites have been
identified:
1. Whitwell Moor
2. Sick Brook
3. Cowell Flat
4. Cliffe House Farm
5. Cross Farm
6. Hoyles Farm
7. Sugworth Path
8. Harrison Plantation
9. Langsett
10. Loxley Banks
11. Hagg Brook
12. Redmires Conduit
13. Rocher End
14. Upper Don catchment – invasive nonnative
species (INNS)
We will be delivering the following on
these sites:
Roughening of the landscape and improved
soil retention:
Mainstream habitat and connectivity
projects result in an overall roughening of
the landscape. The creation of permanent
cover, from heather through to scrub
and woodland, protects soils in situ and
reduces overland soil movement, and
increases soil diversity and fauna. As such
most of the other ‘habitat projects’ will link
automatically to our water outcomes.
Woodlands for Water:
Following EA opportunity mapping, identify
areas for tree planting and deliver a range of
connectivity projects where possible. Note
that land taken out of production for tree
cover will require a letter of intent to retain
for ten years from 3rd parties.
SLLP LCAP Projects
379

Field corner interventions and bunds:
With particular reference to the Arup
mapping, identify field corner (or drainage
points) to create small temporary reservoirs
where water can be retained at times of
high rainfall. Biodiversity gains are liable to
be minimal but some re-wetting of nonintensive
field use will result in improved
species diversity.
Leaky Dams: creation of log jams, debris
dams and accumulations of coarse woody
debris (CWD):
Locally sourced timber will be used to create
new engineered log jams (ELJ’s), debris
dams and accumulations of coarse woody
debris at appropriate locations within the
project area.
Establish and/or widen riparian buffer strips:
Buffer strips are, in many cases, crucial to
reduce the impact of livestock grazing, or
soil run-off, to watercourses.
Wetland creation through widening ditches
and wetting ditch boundaries:
To create wet habitats through and
alongside fields where wildlife can thrive
and water will be retained and soaked into
the land.
Wetland creation general:
Where opportunities arise to create new
or enhance existing wetlands, they will be
taken in order to increase the overall area
and range of wetland habitats. However,
where possible and with reference to
potential monitoring and evaluation (M&E),
wetland projects will be designed with
the potential of increased capacity during
very wet periods. This can be as simple as
creating wide pond margins which would
normally offer wet/damp marginal habitats
capable of floodwater retention.
Sheffield Hallam University will be
undertaking a programme of research work,
contributing student and lecturer time inkind,
on the NFM elements of this project,
assessing the efficacy of different NFM
interventions and providing transferable
quantitative analysis on the impacts of NFM.
In particular the Hagg Brook “catchment
lab” site will see a range of NFM structures
specifically designed and tested to gain
a better understanding of how they
perform in field conditions, and to analyse
their impact both on local hydrology and
downstream flood risk.
INNS
Undertake a communications project
involving local people from the partnership
and beyond, to identify and map a limited
range of invasive non-native species in
the SLLP area. We will be looking to map
presence of Japanese knotweed and giant
hogweed, to identify extent of coverage and
determine condition of the locations where
they are found.
Once INNS have been identified and
mapped, the site owner/managers will be
identified and informed. Where this is on
SLLP partner sites we will seek to include
management or eradication via our projects
where possible.
Non-partner owner / managers will be
advised and assisted (if possible) regarding
a coordinated approach to managing these
species.
Identified site specific interventions:
Whitwell Moor – restoration of wet
heathland: scrub removal, leaky dams, pond
restoration and creation
Sick Brook – fencing watercourses &
woodland planting; bog re-wetting; gully
blocking and restoring wet heathland.
Cowell Flat – addressing soil erosion
problems by installation of surfaced track,
culvert, drinking point.
380 SLLP LCAP Projects

Cliffe House Farm – creation of new ponddipping/education
pond
Cross Farm – fencing off brook and
installing water trough to livestock erosion/
eutrophication, and enhance woodland
regeneration
Hoyles Farm – fencing off watercourses &
woodland planting; installation of leaky
dams/CWD; pond creation; rhododendron
removal
Sugworth Footpath – management of soil
erosion and run-off along half kilometre
of footpath; installation of kissing gates to
prevent grazing of woodland; woodland
management to enhance regeneration.
Harrison Plantation – repairing boundaries &
installing access and water supply to allow
conservation grazing of heathland; bracken
control.
Langsett – installation of leaky dams/CWD/
ELJ’s on watercourses; fencing and wet
woodland planting on Kiln Bank Brook.
Loxley Banks – pond & scrape creation;
enhancement of riparian habitat by
coppicing/pollaring, fencing and installation
of pasture pump.
Hagg Brook – “Catchment Lab” research
project trialling and analysing different
designs of leaky dams / ELJ’s
Redmires Conduit – fencing off banks of
conduit & scrub control to protect riparian
habitat and water vole population
Rocher End – fencing and scrub control on
bog habitat; installation of leaky dams on
Rocher End Brook
Citizen Science project
time (4 years) does not often give usable
information.
Within this project we have an opportunity
to undertake physical interventions and
habitat creation work on publicly accessible
land and private sites. On these sites we
will be assessing physical and hydrological
changes. These changes need to be
considered against weather conditions,
particularly rainfall.
We will identify and involve 50 local people
in keeping routine rainfall data across the
landscape area and a further 10 local people
in relatively simple, localised stream flow
monitoring across the area.
Supporting documents
List, format and location
• EU Biodiversity strategy to 2020
• ARUP report and maps
• EA Flood Opportunity mapping report
• Sheffield Flood Risk strategy
• Sheffield Waterways Strategy – City of
Rivers
Other Partners and Organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
1. Environment Agency, core water quality
and flood management outcomes.
2. Natural England Countryside Stewardship
support.
3. Yorkshire Water and Sheffield City Council
as major landowners and managers of
their own sites where interventions will
occur and landlords of tenant farms.
Normally there is little opportunity to
involve the general population in the
form of dispersed habitat creation and
management work. Monitoring vegetation
and species change over short periods of
SLLP LCAP Projects
381

Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
1. Broomhead Estate, Whitwell Moor (Ben
Rimington Wilson)
2. Church Farm, High Bradfield (Richard
Hague)
3. Cliffe House Farm, Dungworth (Eddie
Andrews)
4. Cross Farm, Low Bradfield (George Hawke)
5. Hoyles Farm, Bradfield Dale (Derek Hunt)
6. Rocher End Farm, High Bradfield (Mick
Parkin)
7. Sheffield Hallam University
How does the project contribute to our
VisionThis project is about protecting,
enhancing, connecting and creating the
‘wilder’ and more ‘natural’ habitats of the
area. Habitats will be enhanced and created
for birds such as curlew and lapwing, and
each activity will help provide clean water
with reduced flooding. We have recognised
a lack of understanding around the benefits
of these ‘wilder’ habitats, particularly
quantitative information on the ecosystem
services potential of natural solutions. As
such we aim to undertake high level M&E
around some of the practical interventions
we undertake.
Strategic fit
The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020:
Healthy ecosystems provide a stream of
goods and services vital to society, such
as food, fibres, clean water, healthy soils,
protection against floods and erosion.
Unfortunately, many of Europe’s ecosystems
are now heavily degraded which drastically
reduces their ability to deliver these valuable
services.
Sheffield Flood Risk Management Strategy,
SCC: Aims to reduce the likelihood of
flooding and its impact on Sheffield’s
people, businesses and visitors and also to
take the opportunity to improve the city’s
environment.
Protecting Sheffield from Flooding, SCC:
Developing schemes to deliver the above
strategy.
Contribute to the Water Framework
Directive: This project will have benefits
in reducing the impacts of diffuse water
pollution (including Nitrates), flooding and
the ecological status of rivers and more use
of green infrastructure.
The Sheffield Waterways Strategy – City
of Rivers: Management of the upland
catchment including reservoirs to improve
stormwater retention and compensation
flows:
Uplands flood storage and control project:
Investigate opportunities for flood control
in upper catchments including water
retention, farming diversification, changes to
moorland and peat management
Outcomes
• Reduced flooding
• More sustainable rural drainage
• Less flashy flows
• Drought protection
• Climate change adaptation and
mitigation
NFU Brexit Domestic Agriculture Policy
To facilitate the development of a future
agricultural policy, we are proposing a
framework formed of three constituent
parts:
• Productivity measures and business
resilience
382 SLLP LCAP Projects

• Volatility mitigation measures and
management tools
• Environmental measures
DEFRA Farming Rules for Water: From
2 April 2018 new rules for all farmers in
England will be introduced to help protect
water quality, by standardising good farm
practices that many are already delivering
and offering a new approach to regulation.
In essence the rules require farmers to:
• keep soil on the land;
• match nutrients to crop, and soil needs,
and
• keep livestock fertilisers and manures out
of the water.
Yorkshire Invasive Species Forum
Partnership working on tackling invasives
with a specific scheme working on
a strategic approach across the Don
Catchment.
Meet one or more SLLP Programme
Objective (and how)
1. a more connected and resilient landscape:
Protection and connectivity of physical
habitats is an important output from this
project. In addition we will be raising
awareness of connectivity and resilience
amongst landowners and managers
throughout the area. Tackling invasives in a
strategic way.
2. better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors better understanding of the local
heritage with more people helping look
after it – a landscape for all to learn about,
value, experience and enjoy
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured)
Outcomes for heritage
Heritage will be better managed as 10
landowner / land managers, covering a
minimum of
771 ha will be engaged and spoken to about
wildlife areas and ecosystem services. 13
projects delivered and in better condition
Our targets:
• 76 ha of heathland/bog/grassland mosaic
will be put into positive management
• 15 ha of woodland will be either restored
or planted as “woodland for water”
• 1 existing pond will be restored
• 6 ponds or scrapes will be created
o km of riparian habitats will be improved
for wildlife and water
• 9 ditch blocking, coarse woody debris or
field corner interventions will be carried
out.
• 7 interventions will be made on sites to
prevent water contamination by erosion
or livestock
Outcomes for people
4 undergraduate students will have
developed new field and analytical skills
and also had an opportunity to learn about
natural heritage while working on physical
geography projects.
They will have volunteered their time as
student placements will spend 400 hours
each supporting this project over the four
year period
We will hold 1 open day where up to 100
people will visit a participating farm or
landholding and be shown around. They will
be told about what we are doing for wildlife
connectivity, resilience and water.
SLLP LCAP Projects
383

1 exhibition will be created to explain to
100 laymen and landowner/managers the
benefits of NFM work in non-academic
terms. This exhibition will be taken to a
range of local events.
We aim to engage 60 local people in routine
rainfall and streamflow monitoring.
Outcomes for communities
The negative impacts of flooding from
increased rain and sedimentation from
soil erosion will be reduced. Through the
research programme there will be an
opportunity to gain quantitative figures as to
the degree of impact this project has.
Farmer freeing bogged sheep, tributary of Sick Brook:
opportunity to fence off area and create wet woodland,
while improving livestock welfare
10 farmers and their families will actively
engage with the natural heritage of their
landholdings by taking part in the project.
Habitat and visual landscape improvement
together with increased connectivity for
species movement and reduced flood risk
to local communities.
Soil erosion problems on Cowell Flat, tributary of
Agden Dike
Consents required
EA and FC (EIA checks) – will be applied
for on a case-by-case basis but we do not
expect any issues.
Photographs
Opportunities to slow the flow of water into Bradfield
Dale by woodland planting on gully sides and installing
leaky dams in gully bottom, Hoyles Farm
Wet heathland at Whitwell Moor under threat
from invasive rhododendron and trees
Soil erosion and run-off problems on Sugworth footpath,
part of Sheffield Country Walk
384 SLLP LCAP Projects

Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
1. Back from the brink – see above
2. Monitoring and Evaluation – research
programme delivered by SHU will
demonstrate impact of NFM works
3. Evidencing ecosystem services – see
above
Watercourse at Langsett where leaky dams/CWD
interventions are proposed
4. Community engagement – farm liaison
work will engage farmers and their
families with the work of the project
5. Communicating the good work of the
heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters – the research work
undertaken by SHU will provide academic
recognition by universities of the value of
NFM work
Biosecurity
River Loxley at Loxley Banks, where reduction in
canopy cover will enhance marginal vegetation
Demonstrate Links / Cross fertilisation to
at least 2 other projects
This project will link into a number of the
other projects in the LP programme:
• “Landscape Connections” – creation of
pond-dipping pond for educational use at
Cliffe House Farm
• “Lost Ways” – addressing erosion and runoff
problems on Sugworth footpath will
also benefit walkers using the Sheffield
Country Walk
• “Restoring the Lattice” – rebuilding derelict
drystone wall at Sick Brook, to establish
woodland planting
• “Species on the Brink” – protection of
watercourse at Redmires Conduit will
benefit threatened water vole population
This project will involve visiting and working
upon a range of 3rd party sites including
farms. We will abide by any biosecurity
requirements laid down by individual
landowners. In addition we will undertake
general biosecurity precautions when
undertaking multiple site visits following
Check-Clean-Dry protocols.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
Where habitat creation or enhancement
projects are undertaken on non-partner
land, i.e. farms or private estates the
works will be accompanied by a ten-year
management/maintenance prescription.
Where an individual non-partner landowner
/ manager is in receipt of £10,000 or more
of cash value for interventions they will be
asked to sign a letter of intent to retain and
manage the interventions for ten years. For
projects below £10,000 the maintenance
prescription will outline the HLF guidelines.
SLLP LCAP Projects
385

Operational
The position regarding agricultural and
rural support post BREXIT is an unknown,
however there are indications that future
farm / agricultural support from central
government will be dependent on
‘Environmental or Ecosystem Services’ of
some description. This project will position
the SLLP team and local landowners in such
a way as to demonstrably be able to ‘bid’
to whatever mechanisms come into place
post-BREXIT to support and deliver such
services.
Strategic
A habitat enhancement approach to Natural
Flood Management and in particular
low-impact on-farm interventions are
recognised as offering good value for money
and the potential for significant outcomes.
However, little is understood regarding the
quantitative benefits of such work, hence
the cost-benefit analysis against more
intensive engineered schemes cannot
be made. Between the obvious layman’s
outputs we can demonstrate, and the
high-level data generated by Sheffield
Hallam University (and others) low-impact
natural flood management will be better
recognised. Neither the Sheffield Flood Risk
Strategy nor Waterways Strategy reference
NFM, nor do they identify a need to target
resources at it. It would be a significant
outcome from this project if future
documents did.
of the programme. A Farm Liaison Officer
will work part-time during the delivery
phase of the project, with legal support, to
ensure that good relations are maintained
with tenants and landowners, and letters of
intent are signed by the above.
Another risk is the availability of specialist
contractors, familiar with NFM work, but
we have mitigated for this risk by planning
to deliver the majority of the capital work
using SRWT’s Wildscapes team. Delivery
of the project will allow existing staff to
be up-skilled and in-house expertise to be
developed in this novel area of work.
Climate Change
The NFM works and habitat creation and
improvement works undertaken through
the project will build resilience in the
landscape. Extreme and unpredictable
weather events are predicted to become
more frequent under climate change, but
the measures put in place through the
project to hold back more water in the
landscape and to enhance riparian and
related habitats, will effectively mitigate
against both flooding and drought.
Risks
The most significant risk in this project is
securing consent from landowners and
tenants to undertake the planned works.
Ten of the thirteen project sites are owned
by project partners (YW & SCC), and
discussions have been held with the other
private landowners. Extensive consultation
has been undertaken with tenants, with site
visits and discussions held with all of the
relevant tenants during the feasibility stage
386 SLLP LCAP Projects

Working With Water – slowing the flow and improving water quality
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Timber 3,067.00
Walling stone 8,333.00
Trees & plants 6,250.00 2,500.00
Other 400.00 340.00 500.00
Contractors
Using Wildscapes as partner/
contractors: 4 field staff + a flat bed
truck. @ £300 per day (cost only)
and 65ppm
Specialist tree work: bankside
coppicing & pollarding 5,250.00
3,200.00 500.00 2,400.00 400.00 400.00 2,400.00
Professional fees 3,925.00 2,925.00 1,785.00
Farm Liaison 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00
Non recoverable VAT 5,313.40 1,400.00 2,466.60 3,006.60 2,065.00 1,400.00 4,118.00 500.00 200.00 1,685.00 4,114.60 235.20 357.00
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Publicity & promotion 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00
Non recoverable VAT 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees 1,000.00
Non recoverable VAT 200.00
294,472.16
SLLP LCAP Projects
387

Supporting Species
Full project description
Lead partner
Wildscapes Ecology CIC
150 word summary
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership has a range of heritage
and engagement projects across the
landscape. Woven within these projects are
opportunities to influence both our own and
other people’s actions in such a way as to
benefit wildlife and particular species.
A small range of species have been chosen
that offer:
1. The opportunity to engage a wide
audience and inform people regarding
their influence on the landscape.
2. Reactive species where we have
benchmark data that we can monitor
throughout the period of the LCAP
to help determine successful habitat
management.
3. Charismatic indicator species where we
can use scientifically sound modelling
to both influence management
decisions and raise awareness of wider
environmental issues.
The species identified by the SLLP Steering
Group as offering greatest opportunity are:
1. Bats (as a group of species)
2. Barn Owls
3. Osprey
4. Goshawk and nightjars
5. Woodland birds (willow tit and flycatchers)
6. Water voles
1. Making space for bats
Throughout the development phase we have
been working in close partnership with the
South Yorkshire Bat Group, this will continue
through the Supporting Local Groups – The
Bat Group project. However, where that
project focuses primarily on assessing the
current status of bats within the Landscape
Partnership area through detailed survey
work, this project will focus on improving
practical conservation and public awareness
of bats.
During the SLLP development phase
Wildscapes worked with the South Yorkshire
Bat Group (SYBG) to opportunity map small
Myotis species across the SLLP landscape.
This information confirmed the importance
of woodland, forestry and connectivity to
these species. It also indicated how and
where our activity regarding woodland
projects in particular could positively
influence the resilience and of these species.
Throughout the 2018-2023 SLLP LCAP there
will be a range of projects carried out by
partners, including Heritage highways,
Archaeology project, supporting local groups
and in particular the SYBG project itself.
The first part of the project is to develop a
coherent strategy for managing woodlands
with care for bats through consultation
with the South Yorkshire Bat Group. This
information will be fed into the Sheffield
388 SLLP LCAP Projects

Lakeland Area woodland management plan
to be developed within years 3 and 4 of the
Woodland Heart project. This will involve
assimilating the existing information available
for management of woodland for bats, legal
requirements and the existing roost records/
bat box schemes within the area.
The second part of the project will be to
conduct three bat public engagement
events involving bat box building and bat
walks. These events will be promoted as
Sheffield Landscape Partnership, Sheffield
and Rotherham Wildlife Trust and South
Yorkshire Bat group events. They will be
used to encourage membership for the
latter organisations. The public will be
invited to sponsor and construct a bat box
which will then be placed within targeted
woodlands by volunteers. A volunteer bat
worker will then check these bat boxes
on a yearly basis throughout the project
period. The results of the box checks and
of the bat survey work undertaken by the
(SYBG) will be summarised in article leaflets
to be emailed to the sponsors in Autumn.
The article will include details of the public
engagement events scheduled for the SLLP
area in a “get involved” section.
2. Barn Owls
Barn owls are a charismatic hunting species
which is readily identifiable and highly
reliant upon both agricultural buildings and
land use. Whilst nationally the population
trend is for improving numbers (allowing
for yearly population fluctuations), the
population status for the SLLP area is
largely unknown, with anecdotal evidence
suggesting a decline. This is likely to due
to changing farming practices and loss
of suitable nesting sites. As with the bat
species project we have an opportunity
to reach out to various land and building
managers, to inform and influence
behaviour. This project will fund:
• Data gathering and mapping of barn owl
via a citizens science project
• The creation of a new barn owl group to
conduct site visits and offer management
advice throughout the Sheffield region
• Training of up to 4 key volunteers in
the appropriate survey techniques and
management techniques for barn owl (via
the national charity Barn owl Trust)
• Outreach visits by a volunteer barn owl
ecologist to land/building owners to
offer advice on both land management
for owls and retention and/or creation of
nesting opportunities.
• A small budget to purchase and erect owl
boxes
• A webpage report on the work carried out
and its success (or otherwise) together
with recommendations for future work.
• Public engagement events within the
SLLP area to gain members for the Barn
owl group.
3. Ospreys
Ospreys are charismatic fish eating birds of
prey, they are Amber listed (RSPB) within
the UK with only 200-250 breeding pairs
known nationally (the majority in Scotland
and Wales). Hunted to extinction in the UK
in the 1800s, the population first began
to return to Scotland from Scandinavia
in the 1950s. The species is expanding its
territory through a combination of increased
animal and habitat protections, and
reintroductions. The expansion has resulted
in breeding pairs being recorded at sites
at Bassenthwaite and at Rutland water in
England. Birds have currently only ever been
known to fly over the Sheffield Lakeland on
migration between summer nesting sites
to the north and wintering grounds to the
south. The Peak district Raptor Monitoring
Group (PDRMG) has confirmed that whilst
SLLP LCAP Projects
389

the fish populations of our reservoirs
are likely to be insufficient to support a
breeding pair alone , when taken together
with the larger fish populations at the
Ladybower complex to our west, the sites
should be sufficient to support a nesting pair
of osprey. In this scenario, the less disturbed
nature of the sites within the Lakeland area
could make a nesting site at this location
more favoured than one on Ladybower.
Many organisations across the UK, RSPB,
Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust and
Anglian Water, are engaged in creating and
managing nesting opportunities for osprey.
Some have been successful (Rutland Water
and Bassenthwaite) while others are still to
see a single visit.
This project will work with the Midhope
Nature Reserve project, where we will be
erecting an Osprey platform.
4. Goshawks and nightjars
Goshawks are charismatic and secretive
raptors, reliant upon woodlands and
forestry as hunting and breeding sites.
Goshawks were hunted to extinction in the
UK in the 19th century. A national program
of reintroductions (both deliberate and
accidental) led to the species return in the
1960s, a trend that also took place in the
Lakelands area.
PDRMG has been monitoring the species
within the Lakeland area and immediate
surrounds since 1994 (when 6 breeding pairs
were recorded), with the highest count of 11
breeding pairs in 1999. However, this was a
temporary reprieve with the population in
the Sheffield area declining rapidly in the
early 2000s with the final result being that
it is now thought that no breeding osprey
are to be found in the area. While illegal
persecution is cited as a likely significant
cause of their decline (PDRMG), increased
fragmentation and exploitation of forestry
areas for leisure may also be factors in their
decline. This project will:
• Map suitable habitat and connectivity
to create an estimate of the potential
breeding population.
• Research neighbouring populations
to estimate and confirm potential
recruitment to the area.
• Ground truth the potential habitats and
determine what woodland/forestry area
could realistically supporting breeding
goshawk.
• Monitor and survey throughout the SLLP
LCAP period to determine actual goshawk
populations. This information is extremely
sensitive and will be managed as such,
so rather than say how many there is and
where, our outreach will only state how
many less there are than we think there
should be.
The results from the above work will be
used to feed into forestry and woodland
management throughout the SLLP area,
with a view to retaining core breeding
woodlands. In addition, the information
we gain will help determine the impact
changes in land use (particularly expansion
of leisure) and illegal persecution has on this
species.
Nightjars are protected under Annex 1 of the
European Commission Wild Birds Directive
and listed as Amber on the British Red
Data List for Birds. Nationally populations
are thought to be recovering as a result of
commercial clear fell forestry increasing the
availability of suitable nesting habitat (Morris
et al.,1994). Breeding nightjars are primarily
associated with lowland heath and young
conifer plantations.
As a result of this, the priority habitat
creation for Nightjar is in clear conflict
with that of the Goshawk (mature and
over mature conifer plantations). In
order to ensure there is sufficient habitat
variety within the SLLP area following this
390 SLLP LCAP Projects

project, it is necessary to ensure that both
species are treated as a priority for forestry
management.
In addition to this, forestry management
suitable for nightjar can often suffer from
poor public perception as it often requires
clear-felling mature conifer woodland which
can look drastic within the landscape.
This project will:
• Review recent years’ nightjar populations
against external (outside SLLP) factors and
internal Forestry activity.
• Assess forestry operation plans across the
Lakelands and estimate how this might
impact nightjar. Consider factors that are
effecting the population.
• Conduct at least 3 public engagement
Nightjar walks within the Landscape
Partnership area to raise awareness of the
species and its habitat requirements
The information gathered within parts I. and
II. will be fed into the Sheffield Lakeland
Area Woodland Management Plan to be
developed within the years 3 and 4 of the
Woodland Heart project.
We will use the information from this
project (and the goshawk work) to raise
awareness of the importance of larger scale
forestry operations within the landscape
for notable species. While both projects
will include a public engagement element,
particularly around how people behave in
the countryside, only the nightjar project
will include bird walks and promotion of
visiting sites.
5. Willow Tit and Flycatcher
We are undertaking a wide range of
woodland and wetland work throughout
our land management projects, including
conversion of commercial conifer to
conservation woodlands, enhancing existing
broadleaf woodlands and nature reserves
and working with water. Through this we
have an opportunity to improve habitats in
such a way as to support particular species.
Within this landscape, marsh tit and the two
flycatchers have been identified as ‘indicator’
or ‘target’ species for this work.
In this project we will:
• Collect and map data on each species to
demonstrate current (known) population
and opportunity map for connectivity and
habitat expansion.
• Support SLLP and other woodland
projects with advice.
• Deliver guided walks and train volunteers
(existing and new) in monitoring
techniques.
The information gathered during this project
will be used to inform future woodland
management, opportunity prescriptions for
future habitat creation projects and to help
people better understand the importance of
woodland as a ‘wilder’ habitat for a range of
specialist species.
5. Water voles
Water voles are a legally protected species
under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
(as amended), with the protection extending
to the places they use to shelter.
Water voles are the UK’s most rapidly
declining mammal with the species
disappearing from 94% of its former range
SLLP LCAP Projects
391

since the 1960s. The latest data suggests that
this trend is continuing with a 30% decline
in territory in the 10 years between 2006 and
2015 (McGuire and Whitfield, 2017). Whilst a
combination of factors have historically led
to the decline of water voles (destruction
of breeding habitat, water pollution and
changing agricultural practices), the leading
factor for the species is the widespread
expansion of the non-native north American
mink. This is clearly demonstrated by the
fact that despite drastic environmental
improvements to lowland rivers within the
last 20 years, there have been few examples
of natural re-colonisation by water vole unlike
other native mammal species such as otter.
However, where they are present and
conditions are suitable, the natural breeding
cycle of the species means that they readily
expand to fill available habitat. The species
has been successfully re-introduced to a
number of isolated sites within the UK where
Mink have not established or have been
eradicated.
The population within the Sheffield area
follows the national trend, with the animal
functionally extinct on all of the low lying
watercourses that would have formally
been their territory. The populations within
the SLLP area is now restricted to a small
number of isolated upland drains and ditch
systems. Where north American mink have
not successfully colonised (due to control
measures or natural factors).
One such site is the feeder conduit leading
in to the Yorkshire Water owned upper
reservoir Redmires which has an established
population of water vole for much of its
length. This adjacent to (approx. 30m from)
the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
reserve Hammonds field. The intention
for this project is to open up the existing
Hammonds field closed drainage system
and improve the suitability of the on-site
pond for breeding water vole to create
expansion habitat for the Redmires conduit
population. The project will:
• Commission a hydrology survey of the
Hammonds field site to ensure any works
undertaken will not detrimentally affect
adjacent or downstream property.
• Obtain the appropriate permissions from
Natural England for the works
• Undertake the habitat improvement
works.
• Provide ecological advice and support for
other projects within the SLLP that may
impact water vole populations.
• Run a public awareness campaign, based
at Redmires, to inform people about
these species and to influence behaviour,
especially amongst dog walkers.
Supporting documents
1. Wildscapes Supporting Species report
2018
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• South Yorkshire Bat group
• Peak district Raptor Monitoring Group
• Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
• Sheffield City Council
• Yorkshire Water
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
• South Yorkshire Bat group
• St Nicholas Church
• Wadsley and Loxley Common
• Yorkshire Water
• British Horse Society
• Rivelen Valley Conservation Group
392 SLLP LCAP Projects

• Peak District Raptor Monitoring Group
• Yorkshire Water
• Sheffield City Council
• Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Strategic fit
Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for England’s
Wildlife and Ecosystem Services – (Taking
targeted action for the recovery of priority
species, Work to engage significantly more
people in biodiversity issues, Promote
taking better account of the values of
biodiversity in public and private sector
decision-making, Bring a greater proportion
of our existing woodlands into sustainable
management)
NERC act Section 41 Species – Priority
Actions needed – (Species management
requirements and priorities)
The Lawton Report – (importance
of managing on a landscape scale /
connectivity / buffers/ stepping stones and
corridors)
The Paris Agreement – Climate Action –
(importance of managing habitat corridors
to allow species movement in response to
climate change)
The Outdoor City Strategy – (Importance of
managing impact on biodiversity as a result
of increased recreational pressure)
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife: The
projects will seek through a combination
of public engagement and feeding into
the wider SLLP projects to increase the
appropriate management and use of wild
spaces.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it –
a landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
We will be working across the partnership in
order to help them achieve these outputs.
Outputs for people
20 volunteers from other groups will receive
some form of training or support and will
have recognised improved skills as a result.
4 volunteers will receive certified training for
Barn Owl inspections from the Barn owl Trust.
2 volunteers will receive certified tree
climbing training to support the Goshawk
project
100 people will attend instructional events
and activities.
46 skilled volunteer days, 32 professional
volunteer days
Outcomes for communities
Our support for woodland species,
particularly goshawk and nightjar will
help drive management prescriptions
avoiding negative impacts throughout SLLP
woodlands.
A minimum of 150 people will take part
in some form of instruction, awareness or
certified training regarding species specific
ecology
Consents required
From public bodies - SSSI consent for Water
vole project, this cannot be applied for until
work is ready to progress, we do not envisage
any issues.
3rd party landowner agreements – Land
owner consent for access for events (focused
SLLP LCAP Projects
393

on partner sites: SRWT consent in place,
Yorkshire Water and Sheffield City Council
agreement in principal but dates to be
confirmed)
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
The supporting species projects are all
designed to integrate into the wider SLLP
projects, be it through providing Adhoc
advice, or ecology support to deliver
projects or providing events and activities
for public engagement events.
However the supporting species projects
will directly input into the final output of
these projects:
Woodland Heart – The supporting species
project will feed in management advice
and species constraints into the strategic
woodland management plan to be
produced by the Woodland Heart project.
Midhope Nature Reserve – Goshawk,
nightjar, osprey, bats and woodland birds
will be key conservation priorities for this
site. The supporting species project will
contribute directly through the creation of a
new osprey platform and advisory input into
the program of ecological enhancement
works for the site. The Supporting Species
Project will also provide advice for the
creation of the long term management plan
for the site.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
18. Priority species recovery: All of the
species chosen for the supporting
species project are NERC Act Section
41 priority species. All of the projects
either directly (through capital works)
or indirectly (through influence on
management plans for the SLLP)
will contribute to the protection and
management of habitats of importance
to priority species increasing the
available opportunities and connectivity
of the wider landscape for those species
improving long term resilience.
19. Telling local stories: The citizen science
project involved with the barn owl
project will lead to the establishment
of a territory map for the species based
on general public records of current and
old nest sites. This can then be used
along with information collected from
other projects to form a narrative of the
changing agricultural landscape through
its effect on the target species.
20. Digital landscape (i.e. using technology):
The goshawk, barn owl, nightjar and
woodland birds projects will involve a
significant proportion of digital mapping,
whilst certain layers will necessarily be
kept confidential (nest sites, species
records vulnerable to persecution) these
layers and accompanying advisory
documents can be made public to
inform long term regional strategies for
these species.
In addition to this, the Barn owl project
includes the provision of a new web
page to encourage public involvement in
a new barn owl group.
21. Monitoring and evaluation: Our work on
bats, together with that of the South
Yorkshire Bat Group will help determine
ecological benefit from the wider SLLP
programme.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
Biosecurity
Standard biosecurity measures for the
prevention of spread of invasive species and
disease will be employed during the works.
394 SLLP LCAP Projects

Confidentiality
Due to the potential for persecution and
or illegal damage / destruction of nest
sites all nest and roost records will be
kept confidential through the project.
Where some public involvement with
nest sites is required (volunteer barn owl
group) volunteers will be made to sign a
confidentiality agreement as a part of their
group membership.
With the goshawk, osprey and bat projects
the specific groups involved with project
South Yorkshire Bat Group and Peak
District Raptor Monitoring Group will
be asked to formally agree a policy for
confidentiality and data sharing prior to the
commencement of projects.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
Operational
We will be undertaking very little physical
works, there is no need to require 3rd party
agreements
Strategic
A number of trained and more informed
individuals and community organisations
who will work better with wildlife in future.
Risks
Bats – no risks involved in delivery
Barn owl – lack of public engagement with
the citizen science project (moderate risk),
lack of take up of membership of the new
barn owl group (low risk)
Osprey - no risks involved in delivery
Goshawk – withdrawal of support by the
Peak District Raptor Monitoring group
leading to no delivery of survey work (low
risk)
Nightjar - no risks involved in delivery
Woodland birds - no risks involved in
delivery
Water vole – hydrology report states
site unsuitable due to risk of flooding
neighbouring sites (low risk), NE refuses
consent for works (low risk)
Climate Change
Adaptation and resilience– the project works
are designed to facilitate the modification
of habitat management works within the
region to create corridors through the
landscape that are suitable to allow priority
species range to move northwards. The
projects will work to improve the public
perception of habitat management works
(forestry for wildlife – goshawk and nightjar),
raise awareness of the importance of using
the landscape responsibly (water vole
awareness at Redmires, Goshawk Project),
raise awareness of the implications of
habitat change and loss for species (barn
owl, bat).
SLLP LCAP Projects
395

Supporting Species
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Staff Salary 1000.00 1800.00 2200.00 1700.00 800.00 2000.00 400.00 400.00 600.00 200.00 2200.00 400.00 200.00 300.00 1400.00
Funding area
Management Overheads 181.00 176.00 1219.00 552.00 1003.00 512.00 71.00 71.00 376.00 467.00 683.00 71.00 336.00 40.00 1642.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Project Overheads
Vehicle 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Travel for staff 500.00 500.00 500.00
Office equipment 750.00
Non recoverable VAT 270.00 20.00 100.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 100.00
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Site equipment 500.00 19115.00
Site Officer PPE 884.00
Tools 950.00
Contractors 3500.00 2500.00
Professional fees 8000.00
Non recoverable VAT 100.00 6409.00 500.00
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer/trainne travel 2300.00
Volunteer PPE 400.00 1480.00
Volunteer training 1400.00
Volunteer support budget 438.00
Non recoverable VAT 80.00 1144.00
Funding area
Publicity and promotion
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
76000.00
396 SLLP LCAP Projects

The Hidden History
Archaeology in the landscape is not always
obvious but it has shaped the landscape
and the community.
Lead partner
South Yorkshire Archaeology Service and
Sheffield City Council Parks and Countryside
150 word summary
Exploring the Sheffield Lakeland heritage
through surveying and recording lesser
known sites.
The project will look to explore our hidden
heritage, involving the community in sites
of interest across the landscape partnership
area and time.
The Project Officer will be engaged and Line
Managed by SCC Parks and Countryside
and supported by the South Yorkshire
Archaeology Service. We will engage
specialist archaeological contractors to work
with the Project Officer on eight projects,
covering eight sites:
1. Nature Reserves
2. Woodlands
3. Lodge Moor POW Camp
4. Prehistory
5. Wadsley and Loxley Commons
6. Early valley industry
7. Bloomery Sites around Stocksbridge
8. The Story of Water
Full project description
South Yorkshire Archaeology Service (SYAS)
and Sheffield City Council (SCC) Parks and
Countryside Service have got together to
jointly run this project.
SYAS will quality assure throughout the
programme, ensuring project activity is in
line with archaeological best practice. They
will compile detailed project briefs to inform
and direct the professional archaeological
services contracted to support the project
SLLP LCAP Projects
397

officer. They will monitor progress and
output quality, to ensure it meets the
requirements of the brief.
SCC Parks and Countryside will line manage
the project officer, who will manage the
overall programme, including reporting to
SLLP. They have run a number of successful
community heritage / archaeological
projects previously, with the most notable
being; Light up the Hill at Wincobank which
was part of the ‘Roots of Iren’ Project.
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/festivalah/
exhibition/archaeology/roots-of-iron
A range of scoping exercises were
undertaken during development and
they, together with continued community
engagement, have resulted in the
following projects being identified as key
archaeological opportunities.
Each project will include:
• an archaeological/heritage issue,
• a site to use
• a group to work with
• a competent professional with expertise
in the relevant area.
During the project the project officer and
consultant will support a community, or
volunteer group, and help them undertake
and learn about:
• Appropriate archive research (e.g.
Sheffield Archives, Local Studies and
possibly Sheffield Museum to assess the
known information, allowing the group
to set the scene and put the location into
context.
• Archaeological fieldwork skills and
techniques. This may include field
walking, test-pitting, walkover survey and
geophysical survey. Targeted excavation
is also possible, where a research
question has been identified or loss of an
archaeological feature is unavoidable.
• Create a cohesive report together with a
story board for the SLLP website.
• Deliver at least one public event either on
site or a slideshow to deliver to a wider
audience.
In addition each project will host a field visit
from one or more of the local branches of
the national ‘Young Archaeologists Club’.
Each project will also host a visit from the
Stepping Out programme of SLLP.
Project 1
Nature Reserves and Woodlands
Working with the Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust
on a demonstration project to include
existing groups of volunteers in undertaking
research and survey work for the
Hammonds Field, Carr House Meadows
including the adjacent SCC plantation to
the south and Agden Bog nature reserve
including the adjacent SCC PAWS Woodland
in the SLLP area in order to identify
archaeological and landform features of
importance before undertaking intrusive
work such as scrapes and pond creation,
which may damage or destroy important
archaeological features.
Project 2
Woodlands
Woodlands and forestry form important
features in the landscape. Our scoping
exercise of the plantation forestry indicates
that this is mostly planted on agricultural
land with limited archaeological interest.
However, ancient woodland is liable to
include archaeological features which
include historical woodland occupation and
industry, as well as those which pre-date
the woodland. These features are mostly
overlooked by those visiting woodlands for
leisure purposes. On two ancient woodland
sites including the SCC owned part of
398 SLLP LCAP Projects

Bitholmes Wood and Newhall Wood in
Stocksbridge, we will carry out a woodland
archaeological research project to identify
the history of human activity in the
woodlands, including previous woodland
management, charcoal, settlements etc.
This project will be run without an identified
support or participation group, but with the
aim of involving current users; dog walkers,
walkers, families etc.
Project 3
Lodge Moor prisoner of war camp and PALS
regiment camp
Lodge Moor plantation contains the site
of a former military base/barracks for the
PALS regiment which became a Prisoner
of War camp during both WWI and WWII.
It was a highly significant site, capable of
holding more than 8000 prisoners. Within
the plantation many features of the later
POW camps can still be seen, including
concrete hut bases, other mounds of
building material and parts of the original
boundary fence. The plantation belongs
to Sheffield City Council and there is a
forestry plan that includes thinning. Using
the ‘Woodland Heart’ project, we will help
to ensure the forestry work is undertaken
sensitively and strategically, to open glades
around important archaeological features
and create timber extraction routes that will
double as access to these features. SCC’s
Woodlands Team will work with the project
officer and local groups having an interest in
the site to undertake new historical research
and advise on the most appropriate access
to parts of the plantation and create
an information board to help visitors
understand this important yet little known
historical site. Opportunities will be sought
to animate the project with oral history
research and a re-enactment of life with the
PALS regiment which were stationed there.
There is a wider and more detailed story to
tell around the Redmires camp and other
military archaeology in the area. While
opening up the plantation and starting to
better inform people about the importance
of the site, this project will compliment and
hopefully support more detailed work in
future.
Project 4
Prehistory
The western section of the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership
encompasses large areas of open access
moorland. This open landscape has retained
a wide range features of ancient land use.
While some areas have been surveyed, there
remains large areas un-surveyed, with the
potential to review and ‘join up’ the ancient
history of the SLLP moorlands. The Project
Officer will work with Hunter Archaeological
Society to undertake this work. Other
groups based in specific parts of the
partnership area, such as the Bolsterstone
History Group, could be involved in their
own locality.
Project 5
Wadsley and Loxley Commons
Wadsley and Loxley Common is an
important gateway site to the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership, it is
a local nature reserve in Sheffield City
Council ownership. While it is managed as
a mosaic of lowland heath and oak/birch
scrub woodland it undoubtedly has a land
use history from pre-history through to
post-Mediaeval ganister extraction which
is recognised but little documented. There
is an existing Friends Of Group (called
commoners, but not legally so) who will
form the core community volunteers to
research and interpret this site.
Project 6
Early industry under our feet
The valleys which run down from the
moorlands into Sheffield hosted the
SLLP LCAP Projects
399

development of early industrialised
manufacture. While industry moved into
Sheffield and the countryside claimed back
the valleys the history remains. There will
be a community archaeology project based
at Stoneface, Stores wood, which has not
yet been researched but there are signs of
obvious industrial activity. The site is ideal in
as much as the owner is interested, we have
parking, toilets, classroom etc. The Project
Officer will work with the South Yorkshire
Industrial History Society to undertake this
work.
Project 7
Bloomery Sites around Stocksbridge
Bloomeries are charcoal-fired furnaces
used for the direct reduction of iron ore
to produce wrought iron, sited on hillsides
to utilise the up-draught of air. Significant
numbers are known from the Stocksbridge
and Langsett areas. Further research and
on-site Interpretation is proposed.
The Project Officer will work with local
heritage groups, including the Stocksbridge
& District History Society to undertake this
work.
Project 8
The Story of Water
The landscape across the partnership area
has been influenced by the management
of water, whether for settlement, industry
or creation of reservoirs. The archaeological
assessment (ECUS 2017) identified an
Understanding of how water management
has changed the landscape, alongside the
reasons and agents for that change as a
important area warranting further study.
This will include archival research and
targeted field survey. The Project Officer will
work with Brendan Stone and local groups
to undertake this work.
Monitoring and Evaluation
We will support the ‘overall M&E programme
both through evaluation of this project in
relation to archaeological gains but also
by ‘looking’ at other projects delivered
throughout SLLP and identifying the wider
outcomes from these, particularly:
• Historic Routes
• Restoring the Lattice.
Supporting documents
1. Community Heritage Project Officer JD and
explanation regarding employing existing
staff
2. “Sheffield Lakelands – Archaeological Desk
Based Assessment”, ECUS, 2017. (appendix 6)
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• Sheffield City Council and SYAS are
sponsoring organisations.
• Sheffield City Council will be ‘hosting’
to community heritage project officer
(Job description attached) as an existing
employee, explanation attached.
• Sheffield City Council
• Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
• Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
• Sheffield Wildlife Trust volunteers for nature
reserves
• Local residents for Sheffield City Council
(Bitholme Wood)
• Wadsley and Loxley Commoners for the
common
• Hunter Archaeology Society for the prehistory
project
• South Yorkshire Industrial History Society
for Stoneface, owner of Storrs Wood and the
Story of Water projects
400 SLLP LCAP Projects

• Peak District National Park and Heeley
City Farm Archaeology for the Lodge Moor
project
• Stocksbridge and District Historical
Society for the Bloomery project
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
There is more to the landscape than the
hills and valleys and their habitats, our
archaeologic history is rich and divers. Being
able to read it and understand how the
landscape became what it is and why will
help people value and understand their
landscape better.
Strategic fit
“Conservation Principles Policies and
Guidance”, Historic England
Principle 1: The historic environment is a
shared resource
Principle 2: Everyone should be able
to participate in sustaining the historic
environment
Principle 3: Understanding the significance
of places is vital
Principle 4: Significant places should be
managed to sustain their values
Principle 5: Decisions about change must be
reasonable, transparent and consistent
Principle 6: Documenting and learning from
decisions is essential
“Forests and Archaeology Guidelines”
Forestry Commission.
Principles of managing archaeology
within woodlands by ensuring that the
archaeological resource within the woods is
known and accounted for in management.
“Sheffield City of rivers” Sheffield
Waterways Strategy Group/Sheffield City
Council.
How does your project contribute to our
combined statement of significance?
This is available from the ECUS report – cross
reference their SoS with our projects.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people
and visitors: This project will survey and
record the archaeological history of the
area. Much is already known, form both
documentary and fieldwork sources.
This has been drawn together in the
archaeological desk-based assessment by
ECUS during the development phase and,
subsequently enhanced by the woodland
/ forestry opportunity review. This project
will identify and record a whole new
range of features.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after
it – a landscape for all to learn about,
value, experience and enjoy: There will
be a review of our archaeology project
in the final year (as part of the M&E and
in its own right) this will create a body of
information which will contribute to our
understanding of the landscape.
While the project will be supported by up to
six professional archaeologists they will work
with our Archaeology Support Officer (P/T)
to engage existing archaeology volunteers
and new volunteers all of whom will learn
more about our landscape, the role of
people in landscape development and
archaeology as a hobby and discipline.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
9 sites will be surveyed to determine
archaeology / no archaeology
SLLP LCAP Projects
401

Previous woodland archaeological surveys
have produced a ten-fold increase in
numbers of archaeological features known.
AT least 10 known and newly discovered
archaeological sites will receive land
management prescriptions to protect them.
All newly discovered features will be
positively treated in any future landscape
and woodland management.
Outputs for people
50 volunteers will assist in archaeology
assessments in the field and will learn
practical field skills.
20 volunteers will be trained in basic archive
and field archaeology identification skills.
70 volunteers will learn while taking part
We will run up to 6 site visits for young
archaeologists with an average of 10 (target)
attendees per visit
We will run 6 site visits for ‘stepping out’
project participants with an average of 10
(target) attendees per visit.
Outcomes for communities
Negative environmental impacts will be
reduced because forestry and woodlands
are recognised as sites where heritage
and archaeological features have survived
within the woodland. These can be
either the archaeology of woodlands – i.e.
features that are related to the woodland
itself – or archaeology within woodlands
– i.e. archaeological features that may
have existed before the woodland was
established. However, modern extraction
and replanting are significant risks to this
important heritage. Our aim is to identify
heritage and archaeological features prior
to forestry works and to help put in place
management plans that will protect them.
As such there are pressures to undertake
work such as scrape (shallow bird pools)
and footpath construction. Understanding
what might lie beneath and be threatened
by such work would help secure our
archaeological future.
More people and a wider range of people
will have engaged with heritage as ip to 70
people will have learned more about the
archaeological heritage of the partenership
area.
Our local area/community will be a better
place to live, work and visit because the
projects identified for this project not only
directly address the findings of our surveys
and research by theme but have also been
chosn to give a good geographical spread
across the SLLP.
Throughout the SLLP local communities
will be ‘invited’ to see and take part in
the work we will be doing. In addition the
groups specifically engaged with, listed
above, will each receive the support of
a professional consultant and be able to
undertake a project with a view to gaining
new members and new momentum .
Consents required
3rd party landowner agreements are in
place with:
• Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust
• Storrs Wood owner (Stoneface)
• Sheffield City Council sites
Other projects will occur on open access
moorland
Nature reserves and sites such as Storrs
Wood are predominantly owned and
managed for non-archaeological reasons.
402 SLLP LCAP Projects

Photographs
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
22. Telling local stories
Each project will contribute to local history
and the W&L Common, Lodge Moor and
Storrs Wood project will each tell a specific
story.
23. Monitoring and evaluation
Drystone wall, Ewden Beck (© SYAS) Recorded as an
example of enclosure period walling
SYAS will work with the M&E consultants to
compile an output report
24. Community engagement
This is a community engagement project
25. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially other
supporters.
Wadsley & Loxley, Storrs Wood and Lodge
Moor will each generate publicly available
information (leaflet / notice board).
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
Former POW hut base, Lodge Moor Plantation (© SYAS)
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
1. SRWT nature reserve projects will be
influenced by this research
2. W&L Commoners will also be carrying
out a project under the ‘supporting local
groups’ programme.
3. The SRWT Connecting Steps project
participants will visit a range of projects
4. Much of what we find during these
projects will contribute to “Telling local
Stories”.
When we will be working on the PRoW
network and open access land we will not
need to follow any specialist biosecurity
procedures.
Where we gain access to restricted / private
areas we will abide by any landowner
/ manager requirements in regard to
biosecurity
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
Summary of 3rd party agreements in
place or verbally agreed, all sites sit within
partnership responsibility.
Operational
Forestry and woodlands are recognised as
sites where archaeological features have
SLLP LCAP Projects
403

survived under the trees. However, modern
extraction and replanting are significant
risks to this important heritage. Our aim
is to identify archaeological features prior
to forestry works and to help put in place
management plans that will protect them.
Strategic
The knowledge of location and condition of
archaeological features within the surveyed
areas will make protection a more realistic
option. A more knowledgeable community
will be able to carry forward the work
to other areas, using the archaeological
fieldwork skills learnt during the project.
Risks
Volunteers discover nothing of significance /
interest:
The desktop surveys, consultations and
scoping work has been undertaken with
the express purpose of ensuring the sites
identified can be interpreted.
Insufficient volunteers take part:
The consultation process of SLLP
Development has involved the identification
of groups who are actively seeking to
undertake this type of project and see it as
a method by which they can develop both
their own interests and the membership /
dynamism of their groups.
404 SLLP LCAP Projects

Hidden History
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Staff Salary 2,612.00 3,918.00 3,918.00 3,918.00 3,918.00 3,918.00 3,918.00 3,918.00 3,918.00 3,918.00 3,918.00 3,918.00 3,918.00 3,918.00 3,918.00 3,918.00
Pay increases 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00
Recruitment 1,306.00
Funding area
Management Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Project Overheads
Travel for staff 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Expenses for staff 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Site equipment 150.00
Site Officer PPE 200.00 200.00
Tools 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00
Materials 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00
Professional fees 7,000.00 2,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 7,000.00
Management of project SYAS QA
brief counsultation and M&E
2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer/trainne travel 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Volunteer PPE 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Volunteer training 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Volunteer support budget 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Publicity and promotion 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 1,000.00 100.00 100.00 2,000.00
2,400.00 2,000.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
145,938.00
SLLP LCAP Projects
405

Heritage Highways
The Worrall path – pilot project. A hollow
way, showing the compacted stone surface.
The features shown here are typical of
an old highway and are the type of thing
that volunteers will be looking for when
they survey routes. Photo credit: Melanie
Fitzgerald
Lead partner
The British Horse Society
The British Horse Society is a registered
charity – numbers 210504 and SC038516.
The BHS is the foremost and most
influential equestrian charity in the UK.
The Society has charitable objectives in
education, welfare, access and safety.
150 word summary
Volunteers will identify and research
old highways that were once used by
packhorses, tradesmen and travellers within
the SLLP area. These routes represent an
important part of the heritage of the area –
they were important to the local economy
in the days of packhorses and carriers and
are equally important today as a leisure
resource. Few of those using the old
highways are aware of the history beneath
their feet and some of the old ways are
incorrectly recorded on the definitive map
(DM). Project volunteers will research and
tell the story of the old highways, in various
ways, and make applications/negotiations
406 SLLP LCAP Projects

to have them correctly recorded on the
DM, when sufficient evidence is found, to
preserve them for future generations.
Some repair/restoration work will be
undertaken as part of the project and to
more easily enable multi-use access.
The work needs to be done now as
Section 53 of the Countryside & Rights of
Way Act 2000 contains provision for the
extinguishment of pre-1949 rights that are
not recorded on the DM by 1st January 2026.
If not recorded, these public rights will be
lost forever to a multiplicity of diverse user
groups.
Full project description
Introduction
The main pack horse and trade routes
through the SLLP area have already been
well catalogued by others. Therefore,
project volunteers will concentrate on the
more minor routes that cross the area.
Research & Identify
Volunteers will use archives, libraries and
collections to do further research on the
41 routes (paths) identified during the
development phase as old highways. One
such route, in Worrall, researched by one
of our core volunteers, was used as a pilot
project in order to estimate how much each
route would cost, in monetary terms and in
terms of volunteer hours. This old way will
now be recorded on the Local Authority’s
Definitive Map as a public bridleway – and
therefore preserved and correctly recorded
for the benefit of future generations of
user. This was achieved by the volunteer
liaising with Sheffield Council’s Public Rights
of Way’s Senior Officer and providing a
portfolio of historic documentary evidence
about the route. The volunteer secured
landowner agreement with the result that
no formal DMMO application was required.
(A brief report on the research is contained
in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section.)
It is expected that research conducted
during the delivery phase will reveal further
old ways (possibly 10) that are currently un/
under recorded on the DM. If time allows,
such routes will also be more exhaustively
researched within the project delivery
phase.
Training
The British Horse Society will provide
Restoring the Record training for volunteers.
The training will be open to all interested
parties, walkers, cyclists & riders and will
advise on the most relevant documents,
where to find them, how to interpret
them and how to use them when making
applications to have paths recorded on the
definitive map. One training session will be
held in each delivery year. Records will be
kept of the number of people, age range
and user type (cyclist, rider, walker, etc) of
those who attend training.
Support for Volunteers
Trained BHS Access volunteers will support
and mentor project volunteers during
development and delivery phases. BHS
volunteers are supported by staff at HQ.
Survey & Record
Routes researched will also be surveyed,
so that distinguishing features can be
checked with what’s recorded on maps or
in historic documents such as Enclosure
Awards. Distances between walls/hedges
on enclosed routes will be measured
for comparison with documentary
records. Guide Stoops, Stone Troughs
and other distinguishing features will be
photographed and their location recorded.
Telling Others
One of the aims of the project is to tell
others of the routes researched, to pass on
the knowledge gained so that others can
appreciate the history beneath their feet
when they walk, ride or cycle on the old
ways. One of the project’s core volunteers
SLLP LCAP Projects
407

will compile a booklet*, based on research
discoveries and path surveys, in which the
history of the individual paths is recorded.
Ride routes will be devised, incorporating
some of the old ways, and Ride Guide
leaflets* produced. The intention is that
circular rides be devised across the whole
SLLP area. Ride routes are accessible to the
majority of types of public path user and
so the guides will be inclusive and useful to
walkers, cyclists & family groups as well as
horse riders. The historic use of paths will
be referred to in the guides – thus passing
on the knowledge of the heritage of the
old ways to the users. *These will also be
provided as e-versions for the website.
A project specific waymark disc will be
designed, produced and used to mark each
access to an old highway – informing the
public, at point of use, of the nature of the
path that they’re about to tread.
Engaging the Horse Riding Community
The engagement of the local horse riding
community, via coffee mornings held at
SLLP area livery yards will be pursued – with
potential to recruit further research/survey
volunteers, by discussing the project with
them and the implications for improved
equestrian access. To include a short talk
by an ecologist - stable yards, field shelters,
barns and grazing usually provide suitable
habitat for bats, barn owls, swallows and
other wildlife. This presents an opportunity
to educate horse owners about what they
can do to help the local wildlife.
Route Restoration/repairs/enabling multiuse
access
Some of the routes will require some
restoration, repair work to be done
or structures provided (bridlegates or
mounting blocks) to more easily enable
multi-use access. Surveys during delivery
will highlight which routes are in need of
restoration – a part of the project budget
has been set aside to be used for such
works.
Supporting documents
Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 –
section 53
Extinguishment of unrecorded rights of way:
53.—(1) Subsection (2) applies to a highway
if—
(a) it was on 1st January 1949 a footpath
or a bridleway, is on the cut-off date (in
either case) a footpath or a bridleway,
and between those dates has not been a
highway of any other description,
(b) it is not on the cut-off date shown in a
definitive map and statement as a highway
of any description, and
(c) it is not on the cut-off date an excepted
highway, as defined by section 54(1).
(2) All public rights of way over a highway
to which this subsection applies shall be
extinguished immediately after the cut-off
date.
(3) Where a public right of way created
before 1949—
(a) falls within subsection (4) on the cut-off
date, and
(b) is not on that date an excepted right of
way, as defined by section 54(5), that right of
way shall be extinguished immediately after
the cut-off date.
(4) A public right of way falls within this
subsection if it is—
(a) a public right of way on horseback,
leading a horse or for vehicles over a
bridleway, restricted byway or byway open
to all traffic which is shown in a definitive
map and statement as a footpath;
(b) a right for the public to drive animals of
any description along a bridleway, restricted
byway or byway open to all traffic which is
408 SLLP LCAP Projects

shown in a definitive map and statement as
a footpath;
(c) a public right of way for vehicles over a
restricted byway or byway open to all traffic
which is shown in a definitive map and
statement as a bridleway; or
(d) a public right of way for mechanically
propelled vehicles over a byway open to all
traffic which is shown in a definitive map
and statement as a restricted byway.
(5) Where by virtue of subsection (3) a
highway ceases to be a bridleway, the right
of way created over it by section 30 of the
Countryside Act 1968 (riding of pedal cycles
on bridleways) is also extinguished.
(6) In determining—
(a) for the purposes of subsection (1)
whether any part of a highway was on 1st
January 1949 a footpath or bridleway, or
(b) for the purposes of subsection (3)
whether a public right of way over any part
of a highway was created before 1st January
1949, any diversion, widening or extension of
the highway on or after that date (and not
later than the cut-off date) is to be treated
as having occurred before 1st January 1949.
(7) Where a way shown on the cut-off date
in a definitive map and statement has
at any time been diverted, widened or
extended, it is to be treated for the purposes
of subsections (1) to (5) as shown as so
diverted,widened or extended, whether or
not it is so shown.
Report on the Worrall route
This old track from Worrall to Gate on Burnt
Hill Lane was recorded as a footpath when
the Definitive map was drawn up in 1949.
In this post war period there were fewer
horses in the countryside as machines were
taking over the tasks previously undertaken
by horse power. Horse riding, as a leisure
pursuit, was not established as it is today.
The local knowledge, especially with the
old farmers of the area, is that horses had
always used the track.
A sign stating; ‘no horses or bikes’ was
placed at either end of the track in spring
2017. Local riders were outraged. I undertook
to research the history of the track, with
a view to requesting that the track be
correctly recorded as a bridleway.
I visited Bradfield Archives and studied the
map and accompanying text of the 1789
Enclosure Award for Loxley Chase. Here I
found that the main part of the track at
Worrall was named as an ‘occupation road’
and predated the Enclosure Award, but was
left in place for access to the various plots
of land in the town fields of Worrall. This
indicated that the track was older than the
1789 Enclosure.
I checked the First Series OS map on line
(1840) and discovered that the whole of the
track was shown, just as it is today, as clearly
as some of the other tracks which are now
public roads.
I then studied old maps for evidence of
what was there pre the 1789 Enclosure
Award. The most useful map was Thomas
Jeffries (1771) which I compared with the
Tukes map (1816) it became clear that, pre
enclosure, the south to north routes were
more prominent that the west to east
routes.
I revisited Bradfield Archives to read up
about the medieval towns, especially
Worrall, and also found that the Town Fields
would have been used for growing crops for
the village whilst the livestock grazed the
moorland. In looking at the maps, walking
the track and studying aerial photographs
I began to realise that the visual and
documentary evidence pointed to a much
older route that was possibly used to take
livestock across the Town Fields to the
extensive common lands beyond. (Worrall
SLLP LCAP Projects
409

Moor, Low Ash Common and Loxley Chase)
This incorporated the rest of the track used
today (but not the occupation road).
I then visited Sheffield Archives in order
to find more evidence. I found several
interesting and relevant documents; A Plan
of “Lands belonging to Adamson Taylor
deceased” 1769 and “A deed drawn up in
1731 between Thomas Taylor and Benjamin
Micklethwaite on his marriage to Ruth
Micklethwaite” both pointed to the use of
the long thin fields of today as access to the
Common lands and certainly proved that
these fields have remained unchanged for a
very long time, including their use as a right
of way.
Again, in Sheffield archives I looked for
Victorian evidence, and the Wortley Union
plan of the hamlets of Worrall and Gate
drawn up by Thomas Spooner in 1864 (tithe
map) was useful in marking the Worrall
track as a through route linking the two
hamlets. I also found a Plan of Worrall Hall
and land for sale in 1847 which showed the
occupation road labelled as from ‘Gates to
Worrall’ - good evidence of a through route.
The Inland Revenue Valuation map of the
1910 Finance Act was also useful in showing
the occupation road in the same manner
as other routes that are public roads today.
The rest of the track passed over land
owned by the same farms as it is today.
Both these farms had good deductions
from the tax due to public rights of way over
their land.
The more recent OS maps show the track
clearly and the 1958/9 OS plan even names
it as a cart track. Two old photographs, pre
1950, show that the track was well used by
more than pedestrians at this time.
I compiled all the evidence, including
landowner statements and user evidence
and put it together, with copies of the old
documents, in an application for a Definitive
Map Moderation Order to change the status
of the track from footpath to bridleway.
In researching this track I have discovered all
kinds of interesting facts about the routes of
the area and I am looking forward to taking
my research further and becoming more
skilled in looking at older documents and
delving into what is becoming a fascinating
picture of the ordinary working life of
villagers, tradesmen and carriers and the
routes that they used.
Melanie Fitzgerald
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
1. Community Archaeology project – for
advice and guidance
2. Ecology (Back from brink) project – Bat/
barn owl talks
3. Wildscapes or Steel Valley Project or
SRWT – repairs/restoration of old ways
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
• Dales Pony Society – are very interested
in the history of the working horse
‘Putting horses back in the Landscape’
and packhorses were very much working
ponies. Dales ponies are the working
ponies native to Yorkshire, descendants
of the original Galloway pack animal.
• SLLP area horse riders – by engaging with
the project either as volunteers, learning
about the history of the routes at coffee
mornings, or by gaining more off-road
routes to use.
• SLLP area Livery yards – providing venues
for coffee mornings.
• Cycling groups will also benefit from this
work as the network of bridleways will be
increased.
410 SLLP LCAP Projects

How does the project contribute to our
vision?
One of the project aims is to give people
a greater understanding of the Heritage
beneath their feet – the history of some of
the bridleways and byways that cross the
area. To enthuse them with the knowledge
that they’re treading in the footsteps and
hoof prints of traders and travellers that
passed this way centuries before. Increasing
their enjoyment of being out in the
landscape, of the connection to the past,
of the local economy being carried on the
backs of pack horses through the landscape,
to the present day and future; the same
tracks and landscape providing the
backdrop to healthy exercise and increased
well-being for walkers, riders, cyclists, young
and old alike; a better understood and
valued landscape for everyone to enjoy and
feel at one with.
Strategic fit
Sheffield City Council ROWIP 2007-17 –
Statement of Action – Policy 5, To identify
areas of primary bridleway need. To resolve
route fragmentation and establish bridleway
(multi-use) routes where possible. The
Document also contains a list of ‘Green
Lanes’ for investigation (appendix 6) some of
the routes correspond with those identified
in project development.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors: Telling the story of the old highways
and working to ensure that they are
correctly recorded on the DM before 1st
January 2026.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy: Project is also
applicable to objective 4; Ride guides
and a history of the routes booklet will
be produced to pass on what we’ve
learnt about the history of the old ways
and so increase their understanding and
appreciation of the Heritage which is
beneath their feet as they walk and ride the
old paths and tracks.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
Restoration/repairs to routes where
necessary/provision of structures to more
easily enable multi-use access. Fencing on
the Worrall route – pilot project.
41 Old highways – pack horse, trade &
traveller paths – measured by kilometres of
paths identified and researched (approx 36.6
Kms to be researched to date).
Heritage will be better recrded when we
produce a leaflet print and PDF and a
booklet print and PDF
Outputs for people
20 Project volunteers & others will receive
training about access condition restoring
the recordin
10 livery yards and people who use the ride
guides or read the ‘History of the routes’
booklet.
Outcomes for communities
Heritage of the local routes is better known
by the community; through the coffee
mornings at Livery yards (horse riding
community) production of Ride Guides
& project specific waymarks (path users)
and the production of a History of Routes
booklet.
Extension of the network of bridleways/
restricted byways will lead to a more
inclusive network of paths for use by the
local community.
SLLP LCAP Projects
411

Different types of user will gain a better
understanding of each others’ needs
through interaction while attending training
together.
Older people by assisting with the project
– including our older volunteers. One of
our volunteers has connected with Howard
Smith, local historian and published
author including ‘Guide Stoops of the Dark
Peak’ (1999) & Saltway Trail: Woodhead
to Rotherham (1991). His latest book, The
Redmires Roman Road, has just gone to
print. Howard is helping with identification
of routes on the ground.
Storth Lane
Paths upgraded from footpath to bridleway
or restricted byway will be available to more
types of user, a more inclusive network of
paths. Free at the point of use for both
residents and visitors, to enjoy healthy
exercise in an inspiring landscape.
Consents required
None
Photographs
Far House Lane
Photo credit: Melanie Fitzgerald
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
1. Resound – songs associated with
packhorses, creation of songs relating to
the old ways.
2. Community Archaeology – guide
stoops, troughs, walls – photos taken by
volunteers with help re interpretation and
method from CA.
Rowell Bridge
3. We have invited an ecologist to join our
coffee mornings to give a short talk on the
requirements and importance of barn owl
and bats. This will support the ‘back from
the brink (rename) project
412 SLLP LCAP Projects

Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
26. Priority species recovery
We will be supporting back from the brink
(ecology project)
27. Telling local stories – production of
a booklet, telling the story of the paths
researched
28. Community engagement
We will engage widely but will target the
horse riding community
29. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially other
supporters.
Leaflets and booklet will include HLF logo
and support information.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
We will follow any bio security requirements
of hosting landowners.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Post Project work
The project aims to leave behind a legacy of
5 trained individuals to continue the work
post project, therefore, paths indicated as
being old ways, towards the end of delivery,
are envisaged as being researched beyond
the end of the project by those individuals.
Post project, individuals continuing their
research into the old highways will continue
to be supported by BHS Access & Bridleways
Officers and BHS HQ if required.
Legal and agreements
Legal ROW agreements are part of our
outcomes, not a requirement of the project.
Operational
None
Strategic
6 routes upgraded and protected from the
extinguishment of public rights should the
provisions of Section 53 of the CROW Act be
enacted. Approximately 36 Kms of paths
researched.
Risks (and mitigation)
Provisions in Section 53 of the CROW Act
2000 - The work needs to be done now as
Section 53 of the Countryside & Rights of
Way Act 2000 contains provision for the
extinguishment of pre-1949 rights that are
not recorded on the DM by 1st January 2026.
If not recorded, these public rights will be
lost forever to a multiplicity of diverse user
groups.
Failure to identify routes – some routes
were identified during development, it’s
expected that others may be discovered
during delivery and either addressed during
the delivery phase or afterwards (please
refer to ‘Legacy’). The aim is to identify and
research as many routes as possible within
the delivery phase.
Failure to get old ways recorded on the
Definitive Map within the delivery perioda
number of factors could cause this to
happen; insufficient evidence to justify an
application, objection to an application
or the length of time taken by the Local
Authority (LA) to determine an application.
To address these factors we will consult
with the LA and the landowner regarding
achieving a dedication before taking the
formal route of applying for a DMMO.
(Dedication is a speedier process.) When
considering historical evidence; ‘It has to be
appreciated that the sort of evidence that
would be acceptable in local history work
is often far too weak for legal purposes’.
However; ‘Byways and bridleways, or bridle
roads as old documents tend to describe
SLLP LCAP Projects
413

them, were formerly important routes and
the skeleton around which the countryside
was made. Footpaths generally seem
to have been much more ephemeral,
developed and changed to fit in with local
circumstances. It follows that there tend
to be many more documentary references
to bridleways and byways, and thus a
much better chance of establishing their
status through research than is the case for
footpaths’. Extract from ‘On the Right Track’
by Dr. John Sugden (2000) © The British
Horse Society.
Failure to recruit volunteers – this was
considered during development and taken
into account when deciding the scope of
the project: There are three core volunteers
for research and 15 for surveys. One of
the core volunteers has experience of
volunteer recruitment & support through
past employment and has also recruited &
supported volunteers for the British Horse
Society. If necessary, much of the project
could be completed by the core volunteers,
one of whom works part-time and one will
be retired from paid work by the start of the
delivery period.
414 SLLP LCAP Projects

Heritage Highways
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Staff Salary 650 650
Funding area
Management Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Project Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Materials 2600 2600 2600
Non recoverable VAT 520 520 520
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs 558.25 558.25 558.25 558.25 558.25 558.25 558.25 558.25 558.25 558.25 558.25 558.25
Volunteer/trainne travel 295.75 295.75 295.75 295.75 295.75 295.75 295.75 295.75 295.75 295.75 295.75 295.75
Volunteer training 150 150 150
Volunteer support budget 500
Non recoverable VAT 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112
Funding area
Publicity and promotion 860 600 600 4000
Non recoverable VAT 75 120 75 800
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
£30,332.00
SLLP LCAP Projects
415

Restoring the lattice
Example from a previous HLF Landscape Partnership. A team building exercise with the ARCO Sales Team. Dry stone
walls, important visual and historic features in our landscape, but also opportunities to engage people in teamwork,
getting out into the countryside, learning (or appreciating) a new skill or just knowing you’ve made a difference.
Lead partner
The project will be run by the SLLP
core team as part of the Sheffield and
Rotherham Wildlife Trust
150 word summary
Dry stone construction is best known in the
context of stone walls, traditionally used for
the boundaries of fields and churchyards, or
as retaining walls for terracing, but dry stone
sculptures, buildings, bridges, and other
structures also exist.
The dry stone walls of the Sheffield
Lakeland have been identified as significant
features (LCA) and our project aims to raise
awareness around walls through community
and volunteering projects and to repair or
rebuild a range of the most important walls
in the landscape.
We will undertake a range of walling
protection and restoration projects taking
in some of the most iconic walls in the
area. Seventeen separate sites will include
training and community engagement
opportunities as well as creating a “Walls,
Water and Walks” project telling some of the
story of these heritage features.
Full project description
Are walls just walls?
We have identified our ‘walls’ as having both
historic and landscape significance to our
area, this is supported by our LCA. During
the development phase of this project we
have identified a range of, what we believe
to be, significant boundary features (SLLP
nominated walls portfolio). However we
have not yet been able to assess the specific
416 SLLP LCAP Projects

walls, set them in context and select the
prime, or exemplar features addressed in
this project. A condition survey will do this
for us.
Walls in the landscape and historic walls
According to DEFRA there are four defining
criteria are suggested. The first two cover
historic importance and the second two
landscape importance. These criteria can be
summarised as follows.
A. Recorded historic value of the wall.
Walls designated as a Scheduled
Monument, or are within the designated
area of a Scheduled Monument, or are
recorded on the local authority’s Historic
Environment Record (HER).
B. Age of the wall. Walls whose location is
shown on the 1st edition Ordnance Survey
map.
C. Style of construction and condition.
Walls which are a good example of the
local vernacular style of construction, or
are in a good state of repair.
D. Contribution to landscape quality.
Walls which are recorded in Natural
England’s Joint Character Area
descriptions as a key component of local
landscape character, or those which
are visually prominent when seen from
popular view points, or those which are
well connected to the network of other
walls and other built stone features.
Our walls
As part of the ‘overview’ and ‘recognition’
of this project we will engage a contract
archaeologist to undertake condition
reports and contextualise nominated
walls, they will report ion each wall, set the
context and describe the importance of
walls and walling in the area.
We will engage a range of dry stone wall
contractors to repair/rebuild the selected
features. Contractors will be registered with
the Dry Stone Wall Association (DSWA)
or Dry Stone Wall Guild (DSWG). Where
possible they will be asked to support
assistance either from a general volunteer
basis (volunteer coordinator project) or from
one of the associated projects (such as the
Historic Ways project) or a related partners
(such as Steel Valley Project).
As dry stone walling contractors are skilled
people we have included budgets for plant
hire and scaffolding to support their work
should they need it. We have also included
a ‘contractors’ budget for land management
contractors to prepare both the ground and
clear vegetation etc, prior and post walling
projects.
A portfolio of nominated walls supports
this bid. The following project walls and
boundaries are confirmed:
Bitholmes Wood Ancient Wall
Woodland Trust sunken way £7,500.
Rebuilding the walls of an historic sunken
way running through Bitholmes Wood.
(200m of walling repaired)
Described in project 14a.
St Nicholas wall £3,000
Rebuild / repair walls around St Nicholas
Church as part of the ‘supporting local
groups project’ volunteers and trainees
already identified so this is contract fee for
walling instructor only. 10 days @ £300 per
day.
(overall 750m of wall protected by gap
repairs)
Volunteers on this wall will be counted
under a different project.
£3,000
£5,000
SLLP LCAP Projects
417

Crawshaw Head Lodge (Private House)
Iconic perimeter wall on A57, castellated
wall with heritage significance (PDNPA The
crenelated wall clearly contributes to the
character of the farmstead and its setting,
therefore we would welcome restoration of
the sections flanking the farmhouse). The
wall needs to be reconstructed by a suitably
qualified builder, estimate cost £5,000 inc VAT
(20m of wall protected by repairs)
No volunteers will be included in this
project
£5,000
Cotton Star Walls
Approximately 200m of dry stone wall
comprising the original Water Works
boundary around Agden Reservoir but now
the boundary between Shefield City Council
and Cotton Star camp site. The walls are
of unusual construction according to local
wallers. The walls belong to Sheffield City
Council. This is a standard contract, paid by
the metre at @ £40pm = £8,000
(200m wall rebuilt)
No volunteers will be included in this
project
£8,000
More Hall & Broomhead
A range of repairs around the Sheffield
Water Works walls that now make up the
boundary of Sheffield City Council forestry.
These walls are high profile as they parallel
well used public access routes. A maximum
of 50m of patch repairs @ £40pm = £2,000
No volunteers will be included in this
project
£2,000
Redmires Reservoirs
A range of repairs around the Sheffield
Water Works walls that now make up the
boundary of Sheffield City Council forestry,
these walls are high profile as they parallel
well used public access routes. A maximum
of 50m of patch repairs @ £40pm = £2,000
(785m wall protected through gap repairs)
No volunteers will be included in this
project
£2,000
Redmires Camp
These high dry stone and mortar walls face
Redmires Road. Lodge Moor Plantation
belongs to the City Council and is the site
of the WWII prisoner of war camp; part of
the SLLP Hidden History project. This wall
is in need of a number of repairs where the
top has been dislodged and the creation
of a new entrance point in the wall to
facilitate access to the forestry and camp.
A maximum of 25m @ £80 per metre, plus
£1,500 to create a new entrance feature =
£3,500
(200m wall protected through gap repairs)
No volunteers will be included in this
project
£5,000
Thompson House Plantation
This wall follows the Mortimer Road as is
ascends parallel to Dale Dike Reservoir
toward the Strines Inn. This is an important
visual feature along this popular route. Part
of the pre-plantation enclosures it now
makes up the boundary of Sheffield City
Council forestry. A maximum of 50m of
patch repairs @ £40pm = £2,000
(200m wall protected through gap repairs)
No volunteers will be included in this project
£2,000
418 SLLP LCAP Projects

Training at Sheffield City Council
Sheffield City Council will engage an
apprentice in countryside management
This project will offer that apprentice the
opportunity to undertake tuition toward
and including a Level 1 walling certificate
with the Stone Centre at Wirksworth.
From the walls described previously the
following appear the most suitable for
training purposes
Thompson House Plantation
Redmires Reservoirs
More Hall & Broomhead
Cotton Star Walls
Training and certification for one trainee =
£250
15 Dry Stone Wall instruction@ £250 per day
+ 5% VAT = £4,000
Wragg House
The remnants of an old track, now a double
wall feature within the Wragg House forestry
compartment above Dale Dike reservoir.
These walls would have lined a route which
now only disappears into the reservoir, an
atmospheric reminder of the past. These
walls cannot be fully rebuilt as stone is now
missing, but a good waller together with a
range of support volunteers from the Steel
Valley project will be able to both tidy up
the ‘dilapidated appearance’ of the stretch,
reconstructing the remains in such a way
as to protect them as historic landscape
features into the future and create an
interesting wall feature (to be designed).
Steel Valley Project costs £8,000
Midhope Walls
Throughout the UK the walls of the original
water companies both reflect the local
style, based upon geology and stone size,
and possibly the best quality examples
of the wallers trade. This is no different
in the Sheffield Lakelands with the walls
encompassing what is now Yorkshire Water
land being some of the most distinctive and
highest quality in the area.
We will be creating a nature reserve at
Midhope, the external walls both identify
(classic YW or ‘corporation’ walls) the site as
‘corporation’ and offer true boundary feature
of landscape value and wildlife havens.
YW has two apprentices on two year
contracts, four over the lifespan of SLLP,
undertaking general access, recreation
and habitat management employment.
These apprentices will be able to ‘learn’
about walling through this project; working
with qualified instructors to rebuild walls,
particularly around access points.
Four YW apprentices will each receive
training along the Midhope wall. They
will receive instructions days (ID) and
be expected to deliver repairs without
instruction as standard work days (WD)
Basic ‘gapping’ training on the standard
field walls from a qualified instructor. They
will then complete two gaps each.
4 x ID, 10 x WD per trainee
Intermediate gapping on the higher quality
walls, trainees will receive instruction on
walling technique together with ‘hammer
work’ to shape stone. They will restore one
gap under instruction and an additional gap
alone
4 X ID, 5 x WD per trainee
SLLP LCAP Projects
419

Stone carving
Each trainee will attend a three day long
carving course at the National Stone Centre.
They will then receive further instruction
on repairing the high quality ‘corporation’
wall. As a final delivery the trainees will then
carve suitable walling and coping stones
and repair a section of ‘corporation’ wall to
the original standard.
3 x days carving, 4 x ID, 10 x WD per trainee
Outputs
1km of walling will be ‘gapped’ and restored
to original quality, this will include:
Four trainees each gapping 3 fallen sections
of field wall (9)
Four trainees each gapping 2 sections of
intermediate wall including hammer work
(6)
Four trainees will restore one section of
‘corporation’ wall to include the cutting of
stone (3)
Outcomes
Four Yorkshire Water apprentices receive
training in traditional countryside skill
together with additional training toward
the higher quality walling work which offers
wider employability in the domestic and
heritage sector.
Costs
Instructor costs, we will engage senior or
master DSWA instructors only at a total of
48 days @ £250 per day = £12,000
Attendance at National Stone Centre for
carving training 3 x £350 = £1400
Tools £400
PPE £800
TOTAL £14,600
Training our Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust Trainees
The walls of the Sheffield Lakelands have
been identified as important features
in the landscape and the wildlife Trust
is responsible for managing their own
holdings in the area as well as providing
support for others. Yet the Wildlife Trust
has very limited in-house dry stone
walling capability. The Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership will engage three
trainees over the period of the existing
LCAP (Practical projects and volunteer
coordination). These trainees will gain a
wide range of experience; from H&S and
project management through to dry stone
walling.
The Wildlife Trust has a resource of dry
stone walls throughout their nature reserves
holding:
Agden Bog
Newly acquired from Yorkshire Wildlife Trust,
Agden Bog is an important new nature
reserve for the SRWT, it sits at the top of
Agden Reservoir with a popular footpath
heading out of the valley and onto the
moors. The wall along this path is owned by
the Trust and makes an interesting training
wall due to the steepness of the slope.
Carr House Meadows
At Carr House Meadows, the old English
style meadows have been maintained and
create a lovely setting. These meadows are
a rare example of the flower rich fields that
were once a common sight in England.
They abound with colour – bluebells, yellow
rattle and swathes of red and white clover.
Scabious and orchids can all be found here,
as well as the bright pink marsh-loving
ragged robin, a rarity in the area. The walls
that both bound the road and bisect the
meadows are classic field walls offering
simple, early, training opportunities.
420 SLLP LCAP Projects

Fox Hagg
Perched high on a hillside overlooking the
Rivelin Valley is one of our smallest nature
reserves. From its peace and quiet, looking
out over the hills, you can see for miles, over
the Rivelin dams and the woods of Wyming
Brook further up the valley. Fox Hagg’s own
varied and dramatic scenery is as stunning
as the view, with its patchwork of bilberry,
bracken, heather, birch, scrub, woodland
and moorland. This huge range of habitats
attracts a wide variety of birds including
Meadow and Tree Pipits, Redstarts and
Linnets and a number of warblers which
flit between the scattered birch and the
woodland edge.
Wyming Brook
Once set aside for the exclusive use of the
nobility when it was part of the hunting and
hawking grounds of Rivelin Chase, Wyming
Brook’s babbling streams, mossy crags and
sweet smelling pines are still protected
today, as a valuable home to wildlife. Part of
the Eastern Moors Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI), there is an abundance of
wildlife at this nature reserve, including the
Common Lutestring and Northern Spinach.
At Wyming Brook we also have a major dry
stone wall retaining feature in collapse, this
is a significant feature of the site being part
of the old highway (no longer statutory) and
of historic interest as well as being a major
leisure route for people and horse riders. In
addition it forms part of the haul route for
three partners during the Woodland Heart
Project. We will engage a competent waller
and earthworks contractor to restore this
feature.
Wyming Brook and Fox Hagg have difficult
walls on steep crags which offer complex
opportunities for training and also some
high-quality ‘dressed stone’ walls that
trainees can evidence a good deal of finesse
by repairing.
All of these sites have good levels of public
accessibility, which is being improved within
the Access to heritage and gateways project,
and this project offers us the opportunity to:
Repair 1,200 metre of dry stone wall
Rebuild 8 features; cheek ends, corners, etc.
Bring our sites into good ‘heart’ visibly
demonstrating high quality countryside
management in a conservation context.
Train our staff, trainees and core volunteers
in the craft of dry stone walling, to allow the
Wildlife Trust to continue to maintain the
walls of their own estate and support others
in the future.
Training:
We will engage one, or more, qualified
dry stone wall instructors to train and
mentor each of our trainees each year. The
trainees will undertake instruction of 30
days each per year and carry out additional
‘uninstructed’ walling on our reserves.
Trainees will then be able to undertake the
Level 1 LANTRA examination at Wirksworth.
They will also use the ‘walling’ project
to build a ‘competency’ and ‘experience
portfolio around developing, planning,
organising and delivering a ‘community
engagement’ or volunteer’ event. They will
have the support of a qualified trainer at the
main event but only to facilitate the walling
event itself. These will be two day events.
Volunteers
As this is an ‘experience’ and ‘training’
activity any volunteers involved supporting
the trainees and learning themselves to
support the Trust in future we will not
be able to count their time as volunteer
contributions.
Costs
Wyming Brook retaining wall project
£14,000 + VAT (16,800)
SLLP LCAP Projects
421

Training and certification for four trainees
£1,000
Materials, equipment PPE etc. £4,690
Trainee expenses £1,030
150 days Dry Stone Wall instruction@ £250
per day + 5% VAT £40,000
20 days Dry Stone Wall instructor making
good at £220 per day + 5% VAT £4,620
Ecologist, monitor and review wildlife loss/
benefit £2,160
Interpretation and communication £1,200
TOTAL £71,500
Dry stone walls as art and community
engagement
The purpose of our Landscape Partnership
is not just to protect and enhance our
Lansdscape but to engage with the
communities within the landscape and
introduce our landscape to others from the
wider Sheffield area. With the best will in
the world not everybody wants to walk in
the countryside admiring our important
boundary features, or indeed help us
maintain them! As such we have included
an ‘art and community’ engagement
element to our project.
We have identified a range of community
arts projects through the Lakelands where
local groups and local artists have designed
a range of community engagement
projects. The aim is to get a wider audience
for our project and to leave lasting pieces
of craft / art in the area which are strongly
associated with our walling. This will
predominantly be through using natural
stone in the projects.
These projects are:
Christchurch Community Café Church
sculpture
The Steel Valley Project (SVP) are working
with the Community Café at Christchurch in
Stocksbridge and will rebuilding an old wall
and incorporating a range of stone features
‘left over’ from the church restoration.
This project is described in 14a. Steel Valley
Project
Loxley Valley Flood Art Wall
(Full description on separate narrative)
A creative memorial style wall to
commemorate the great Sheffield flood
along the public footpath that runs along
the borders of Storrs Wood and Beacon
Wood. There is actually very little in the area
to remember this tragic local disaster, this
creative memorial would serve as a necessary
informative symbol about the great Sheffield
flood. The wall would incorporate carved
panels and art works to tell a story about
the great Sheffield flood. Community groups
come and be involved in the re building
of the wall whether that would be actively
working on the wall or simply having a go
and just getting involved. This will help to
teach and promote traditional skills such as
dry stone walling that in today’s society are
greatly overlooked and under-valued.
DSW with two people (one artist and
support) £3,900
Support from SVP £1,500
Stone £1,500
Artwork panels x 4 £5,200
Total £12.100 (no VAT)
Walls, Water and Walks
Walkers are Welcome have created a walking
route which takes in the Sheffield Water
Works walls, the Storrs Wood flood wall, the
Wragg House wall (that disappears into a
reservoir) and (5-10) historically important
water troughs in the SLLP area. This project
will clean up / restore / repair the walls and,
if necessary, the troughs themselves. The
422 SLLP LCAP Projects

features will be linked by an interesting
story and guided route available in print and
/ or via websites.
Design, artwork and words £2,000 (inc. VAT
etc.)
Printing or incorporation into website
£2,000
DSW Contract to restore troughs (£1-2k per
trough) £9,500 + VAT @ 5%
£14,000
(detailed in appendix 13)
As these projects are directly targeting the
community and engaging them in enjoying
and better understanding their heritage
we will not be able to count participants as
volunteers. However, we will look to include
50 people as being involved and therefore
learning about and valuing their landscape.
Wildscapes Landteam
The Landteam support will consist of one
field supervisor and three field officers, who
may be supplemented by two additional
workers where required. This team is
available to carry out practical tasks for any
partners, from clearing vegetation prior to
dry stone walling events and fencing and
planting cloughs for the “working with
water” projects to carrying out cobblestone
replacements for the British Horse Society.
Wildscapes will not be ‘paying’ existing staff
salaries from the budgets identified from
projects but will engage a ‘casual’ landscape
team at cost price. To deliver projects.
Budget lines for 2018/19 are:
Staff time
15 days of dedicated SLLP supervisor and
three support staff at salary, plus NI &
holiday entitlement only
£292.40
Total £4,500
Travel
The Wildscapes team will have access to a
ford transit, flatbed crew cab commercial
vehicle supplied by Sheffield and
Rotherham Wildlife Trust. Mileage costs
against this commercial vehicle will be
charged at 65ppm.
Total £650
Other costs, support and sundries
There are a range of additional costs
recognised in the overall budget these
include cameras, plant hire, travel costs,
support for volunteers, 3rd party agreement
fees etc. These are ‘itemised’ in the full
budget spreadsheet.
£13,000
Supporting documents
1. SLLP Landscape Character Assessment
(Appendix 3)
2. SLLP nominated walls portfolio (Appendix
14)
3. DEFINING STONE WALLS OF HISTORIC
AND LANDSCAPE IMPORTANCE (2007):
Final Report produced for Defra and
partners by: Land Use Consultants with AC
Archaeology
4. Dry Stone Walls and Wildlife (2007) Dry
Stone Walling Association
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• The Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife
Trust will host the Training element of this
project on their nature reserves.
• The Steel Valley Project has nominated
and will deliver project under both the
Landscape & Historic and the Community
Engagement elements of this project.
• Yorkshire Water apprentices will be
building walls at Midhope.
SLLP LCAP Projects
423

• Sheffield City Council are responsible for
a number of the walls nominated (no
statutory duties).
• South Yorkshire Archaeology Service will
be involved with the wall at Redmires
Camp.
• Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
• Woodland Trust host two walls we will be
working on.
• Christchurch and St Nicholas Churches
will have walls rebuilt
• Stoneface, local artist, will be engaged to
complete one wall.
• A range of local dry stone wallers and
instructors from the Dry Stone Walling
Association will be engaged to instruct
and support learners.
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
“crossed by a lattice work of drystone
walls,,,,,,,” this project will contribute toward
this element of our vision by directly
repairing / rebuilding a range of dry stone
walls and by training people in skills so
they can be repaired and maintained in the
future.
“A landscape for everyone to value, enjoy,
understand – and feel part of.” Through our
training, our volunteer opportunities and
through our community arts projects we will
have engaged with several hundred people,
all of who to some degree will better value
and feel part of this landscape.
Strategic fit
The Lawton Report: Of particular relevance
to this review are linear features that run
through our countryside and towns, which
can provide important connections. The
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
include a provision (which transposes
Article 10 of the Habitats Directive) that
“policies relating to the development and
use of land” should include policies for the
management of features of the landscape
which are of major importance for wild
fauna and flora, including those “which
by virtue of their linear and continuous
structure (such as rivers with their banks
or traditional systems of marking field
boundaries) or their function as ‘stepping
stones’ (such as ponds or small woods)
are essential for the migration, dispersal
and genetic exchange of wild species”
(Regulation 39(3)).
The Sheffield Green Belt and countryside
preliminary Landscape Character
Assessment: Dry Stone walls are identified
as key characteristics of the Sheffield
Lakelands.
The Peak District, Dark Peak (Yorkshire
Fringe) Strategy 2009: Repair and protect
dry stone walls is a priority throughout the
landscape priority type.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
1. A more connected and resilient landscape:
Our partnership has endeavoured to
undertake walling improvements across
the Lakeland Landscape, our aim is to
emphasise the importance of walls as a
connecting feature throughout.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife: There
is extensive documentation regarding
the importance of dry stone walls as
species, habitats and travel routes. We
have a small ‘Ecologist’ budget in order
to undertake some monitoring on the
wall that is being repaired and one being
left ‘as is’, the outcome will be to better
inform nature conservation organisations
regarding when and how to repair walls in
relation to species conservation.
424 SLLP LCAP Projects

3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors: Many of the walls identified in this
project are ‘iconic’ or otherwise important
walls because of their location, perhaps
more than many other features in the
landscape; hedges, fences, etc. a dry stone
wall in a state of semi-collapse represents
lack of care, repairing these walls will
encourage people to better value the
landscape.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy: Four apprentices
and four trainees will gain direct and
professional level training in dry stone
walling. However, more importantly, a
wide range of volunteers and participants
will have an opportunity to learn about
walling and their importance in the
landscape.
Ten people will directly volunteer their time
at at least ten days each (100 days).
At least 50 people will take part in our
walling project at some practical level. All of
these people will have better understanding
of local heritage.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
A total of 4,000 metres of visible wall will
be secured through a combination of
gapping, repaired and rebuild and brought
into better condition. 15 sites within the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
will be in better condition due to the work
undertaken in this project.
Outputs for people
5 apprentices and 4 trainees will have
developed professional skills.
In addition to the two ‘community walling
project at Storrs Wood, each of the four
trainees with the SRWT will design, plan and
hold a walling event on a SRWT reserve.
Sixty four people will have learned more
about walls and about the heritage of
their landscape and 10 people will have
volunteered their time directly on this
project (most volunteers will be ‘counted’ on
other related projects).
Outcomes for communities
64 people will have learned more about
walls and about the heritage of their
landscape because they engaged with an
art concept project.
Consents required
None require from public bodies
3rd party landowner agreements are agreed
verbally with the private wall owner sand
will be confirmed before work starts.
Calculating Costs:
“A simple response to how much does it
cost to repair a wall is “how long is a piece
of string”. As much of the strength of a wall
is internal you are very much at the mercy
of the contractor when it comes to the
quality of the work being produced, you will
frequently only get what you pay for. As the
possible shortcuts are numerous in such a
technical craft, speed frequently results in a
drop in quality.
You can pay almost anything: an average
for reasonable work might be around
£20 to £30 per square metre for dry stone
work, but anything from around £16 to £40
per square metre might be applicable,
especially if you want a wall that is going to
last.
Not everyone charges per square metre,
some charge per linear metre, others a lump
sum -the latter is the most risky.
SLLP LCAP Projects
425

With lump sums you are more at the
mercy of the contractor than other forms
of payment. The price will be high enough
to allow for problems and if the job goes
according to schedule you could probably
have got a better job done for less on a
square metre rate. If the job is not going
according to schedule then corners will
almost inevitably be cut in order to speed
the work up.
Similar problems can arise with “piece
rates”, especially at the lower end of the
price scale. There is greater likelihood of the
contractor having to “throw the wall up”,
rushing and cutting corners, if the price is
too low.”
Photographs
Typical SLLP field wall collapse requiring gap work, The
fallen stone is present, and rebuilding these ‘gaps’ will
help protect the rest of the wall in the future.
http://www.dry-stone.co.uk/Pages/
Standards/Dry_Stone_Walling_Standards.
html
We have estimated dry stone walling at £40
per linear metre in order to ensure we have
sufficient funds to cover good quality work,
wherever possible we will look to reduce
costs.
Repair to high quality “Sheffield Water Works” wall
undertaken to field wall standards.
Trainers
We have calculated the costs of dry stone
wall using advice from a number of walling
trainers. Where we can offer substantial
periods of confirmed work with limited
numbers of trainees in well in advance we
will be able to negotiate a better deal. Prices
will range from £220 to £300 per day.
We have chosen a range of walls, nominated
from within the partnership, which offer
training opportunities and / or are important
walls in their own right because they are
part of the local story. All walls are either
part of a public right of way or highly visible
from one or more public routes.
Unique to the area but highly visible and well known
is the crenellated stone and mortar wall at Crawshaw.
Recognised by the Peak District for heritage value but
not designated.
426 SLLP LCAP Projects

the SRWT Nature Reserves. Walls have
been identified as good for wildlife on
the nature reserves so their restoration
will benefit wildlife, nature reserves and
landscape.
3. Creating a new nature reserve at Midhope
The walling undertaken at Midhope will
contribute to the habitat management
and access provision. It will be possible
to use the walling project to move walls
and facilitate access or create areas along
walls suitable for interpretation sites.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Wragg House, an old walled lane that now runs through
a commercial forestry compartment and ‘disappears’
into a reservoir. An opportunity to create an interesting
feature with the community.
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
30. Priority species recovery.
Walls in the environment have been
linked to a range of important wildlife
habitats and species. However there is a
lot to be learned regarding assessing the
value of tumbledown walls and rebuilt
walls, when is it important to retain or to
rebuild and when rebuilding what can we
do to ensure maximum wildlife benefit.
There are is a wide selection of interesting but mostly
unnoticed water troughs still to be found with the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership area.
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
1. SLLP Training Project
This project will offer a core element
of the SLLP training programme. The
trainees engaged on that project will
undertake a good deal of training in dry
stone walling on SRWT Nature Reserves.
2. Investing in our core sites: Enhancing
Wildlife Trust Nature Reserves.
The training project (above) will couple
with this walling project to enhance
(repair / rebuild) the dry stone walls of
31. Telling local stories
We will create a “Walls, Water and Walks”
heritage trail linking the walls with the
wider heritage of the area. The Storrs
Wood wall in particular is telling a local
story, the aim is to create a piece of
sculptural wall that ‘fits’ in the countryside
and tells the story of the 1864 flood.
32. Monitoring and evaluation
Our Ecologist work will create some
information toward the outcomes of this
project.
33. Community engagement
This project has a community
engagement element through the
community arts section of the project.
SLLP LCAP Projects
427

34. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters.
Each community arts project will include a
suitable ‘recognition’ plaque incorporated
into the commission itself. This will be
visible from the most obvious viewing point.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
This project will follow the biosecurity
requirements of each landowner / manager
where we undertake work. On public rights
of way we will practice ‘wash and dry’
practice for footwear and tools.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
Projects completed on partner sites will be
covered by the Delivery Partner agreement
and cross referenced with the Landscape
Conservation Action Plan.
Where walls or art structures are built /
restored on 3rd party sites a letter of intent
will be received from the land owner prior
to work commencing.
Operational
Dry stone walls are fairly permanent features
and we would hope that a good quality rebuild
should secure each wall feature for at
least the next 100 years. Where appropriate
they will be fenced to reduce damage from
grazing animals.
Artworks will be retained for a minimum of
ten years as per the legal agreements but
may be removed thereafter if / when they
become redundant or dangerous.
The walls within the SRWT holding will be
maintained o the highest standards the
NGO can manage.
Strategic
In addition to bringing a range of existing
structures back into good condition and
raising the awareness of the importance of
these features in the landscape this project
will have ‘trained’ at least three trainees to
reasonable degree in dry stone walling. An
outcome of this project is to retain some of
these people in the region with a skill.
Risks
The most significant risk to elements of this
project is the loss of features which have
received HLF support before the ten year
life requirement is expired. This may occur
through accidental damage or deliberate
vandalism, but in the case of most features
outside of SRWT ownership is most liable
to occur if the land is sold without a legal
covenant upon the feature itself.
In order to minimise this risk the SRWT will
hold the Delivery Partners agreement and
all third party letters of intent until at least
2033. Where possible we will advise new
owners of the agreement being in place as
soon as we are aware of ownership transfer.
Climate Change
The SLLP area forms a potentially important
north-south corridor for species migration
and both annually and in response to
climate change. The Dark Peak forms a
barrier to some species to the west while
the urban conurbations of Sheffield,
Rotherham, Doncaster and lowland
intensive agriculture to the east could also
discourage species movement. This is one
of the questions the overall SLLP project will
be asking.
This project may offer significant adaptation
– for instance create corridors for species to
move north – opportunity. Linear features
have been identified as ‘routes’ by which
species can travel, in the Lawton report.
428 SLLP LCAP Projects

Restoring the Lattice
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Staff Salary 364.00 364.00 364.00 364.00 364.00 364.00
Contractors 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,250.00 1,250.00
Recruitment 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33 7.33
Funding area
Management Overheads 124.00 124.00 124.00 124.00 124.00 124.00
Management of project 164.00 164.00 164.00 164.00 164.00 164.00
Pay rate increase 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00 140.00
Office rent/recharge 131.00 131.00 131.00 131.00 131.00 131.00
Non recoverable VAT 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00 33.00
Funding area
Project Overheads 115.17 115.17 115.17 115.17 115.17 115.17
Vehicle 38.33 38.33 38.33 38.33 38.33 38.33
Travel for staff 200.00 100.00 125.00 225.00
16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00
Expenses for staff 22.33 22.33 22.33 22.33 22.33 22.33
Training budget 500.00 350.00 250.00 350.00 600.00 350.00 250.00
16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00 16.00
PPE 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00
3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17
Non recoverable VAT 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Site equipment 250.00 1,850.00 1,800.00 800.00 650.00 100.00 100.00 150.00 500.00 800.00 150.00 1,350.00
76.83 76.83 76.83 76.83 76.83 76.83
Materials 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00 105.00
6.33 6.33 6.33 6.33 6.33 6.33
Contractors 9,751.79 9,751.79 9,751.79 9,751.79 9,751.79 9,751.79 9,751.79 9,751.79 9,751.79 9,751.79 9,751.79 9,751.79 9,751.79 9,751.79
Non recoverable VAT 652.53 652.53 652.53 652.53 652.53 652.53 652.53 652.53 652.53 652.53 652.53 652.53 652.53 652.53 652.53
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer/trainne travel 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00
50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Volunteer PPE 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00
Volunteer support budget 110.00 110.00 110.00
12.83 12.83 12.83 12.83 12.83 12.83
50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Non recoverable VAT 22.00 22.00 22.00
Funding area
Publicity & promotion 250.00 2,000.00 1,000.00
Non recoverable VAT 50.00 400.00 200.00
Funding area
Contingency
M&E 500.00
Legal fees 800.00
Non recoverable VAT 160.00 100.00
£179,685.00
SLLP LCAP Projects
429

Telling the Stories of the Landscape
Lead partner
SLLP Communications and Engagement
Officer working with Storying Sheffield
and Sheffield University Dept. of English
Literature
150 word summary
Telling the Stories of the Landscape will
bringing to life 3 signature stories of
Sheffield Lakeland set in the context of the
changes and challenges being experienced
by 21st century Sheffield.
The project will be led by Professor Brendan
Stone of Storying Sheffield. The outputs
will be a combination of video, oral history,
podcast, creative writing, exhibitions,
presentations and discussions.
a) A Disappearing Landscape – an
intergenerational oral history project with
farmers and other land based workers,
identifying changes in their lifetimes – to
be produced as a podcast which can
support wider interpretation as well as an
oral history archive.
b) The Building of Sheffield Lakeland – the
story of the building of the reservoirs,
outputs will include family history
research, curation of archive images and
will culminate in a touring exhibition.
c) Flood! – A documentary style film which
will provide a retrospective on the 1864
and 2007 flood events, using historic
pictures, reporting, video footage and
vox pops of memories of 25th June
2007, interwoven with information
about the latest research in natural flood
management .
d) Celebrating HLF - Heritage Lottery Funded
Landscape projects are unique in that
they work across a landscape and a
partnership, engaging communities in
specific projects that link together. As
the ‘remit’ is at a landscape level the
partnership has an opportunity to not
just promote and celebrate the work of
the Heritage Lottery Fund as it pertains to
the Landscape Conservation Action Plan.
During the delivery phase of our LCAP
we intend to review all of the projects
430 SLLP LCAP Projects

the Heritage Lottery has funded either in
the area itself or involving its community
elsewhere. We will create a webpage
celebrating what the Heritage Lottery
Fund has helped us all achieve since it
was initiated in 1994.
Full project description
Telling the Stories of the Landscape was
initially given a small budget of just £2000.
However, a story led approach is a useful
tool to underpin interpretive themes across
all the activities of Partnership.
The budgets for story based projects
described below are therefore drawn from
a number of different projects within the
programme. This is noted below for each
one.
Telling the Stories of the Landscape
will bringing to life 3 signature stories
of Sheffield Lakeland set context of the
changes and challenges being experienced
by 21st century Sheffield.
The project will be led by Professor Brendan
Stone of the School of English at Sheffield
University / Storying Sheffield https://www.
sheffield.ac.uk/english/people/stone#tab01
http://www.storyingsheffield.com
Professor Stone’s track record in working
with Sheffield communities, his links with
media production companies and his own
student resource will enable Telling the
Stories to be ambitious in its proposed
outcomes despite modest budgets for the
projects suggested.
Story 1: A Disappearing Landscape
An intergenerational oral history project
with farmers and other land based workers,
identifying changes in their lifetimes – to be
produced as a podcast, which can support
wider interpretation as well as an oral
history archive.
This story will be the focus during Year 1
of delivery, capturing a way of life that is
disappearing before our eyes - the stories
of the stewards of the land - farmers, game
keepers, rangers, land agents, reservoir staff,
ramblers, large private landowners - looking
back at what was, the changes they have
witnessed in their lifetimes and how they
feel about the changes to come.
This project idea has been inspired by the
farm visits and other stakeholder meetings
undertaken during the development year
of the partnership and the recognition as a
result of these that the partnership area is
entering a generational tipping point as the
last farmers who remember working the
land pre-mechanisation pass on.
Activity plan:
• Capturing reminiscences – in the style
of Radio 4’s The Listening Project, where
the listener is a “fly on the Wall” whilst a
conversation unfolds.
• Structured oral history – with young
people as the interviewers – NFU Young
Farmers, students from Sheffield
University and Sheffield College.
Identifying and mapping “roaming range”
as the tool to lead the interview - how
far did interviewees roam from home,
compared to the interviewers.
• Follow- up work - collating of stories,
different perspectives on land and access
and mapping roaming radius outputs.
Analysis of differences, if any, between
Young Farmer interviewers and student
interviewers.
Final outputs will include a permanent
archive (held at Weston Park Museum and /
or Yorkshire Museum of Farm and / or NFU
national archives tbc).
The funding for this story is derived from:
• Telling the Stories £2000
• Digital Landscape £5000
SLLP LCAP Projects
431

However the expenditure is shown in the
Telling the Stories spreadsheet.
Story 2: The Building of Sheffield Lakeland –
(The Dambuilders)
The story of the building of the reservoirs,
outputs will include family history research,
curation of archive images and will
culminate in a touring exhibition.
This story is programmed for year 2 of
the delivery period. The story will be a
follow-on opportunity for a city based new
arrival group which has been involved in
the Stepping Out project to work with
community groups based in Stocksbridge
(via Stocksbridge Community Forum and
Stocksbridge and District History Society).
The 14 reservoirs in Sheffield Lakeland are
built between 1830 and 1929. Exploring
their construction is an opportunity to take
the long view of a community in transition
- a settled community being dislocated
by the flooding of the valleys, a migrant
community arriving to provide the labour
to build the dams. Where did the people
who built the reservoirs come from (Canal
projects, Cornwall, Ireland, Scotland?).
Through a combination of archive research
and storying technique Story 2 will explore
how these communities respond to each
other and to the transformational change
in the landscape. Family history research
will explore the extent to which local
communities can trace their arrival in
Sheffield to the building of the reservoirs
and resonances within communities today.
This story is funded through:
• The Community Archaeology Hidden
Histories strand, project 8. £6000
• Art in the Landscape £4000
NB the proportion of expenditure being
provided by the Community Archaeology
project is shown in the Hidden Histories
spreadsheet, however the expenditure
drawn from the Art in the Landscape
project appears in the Telling the Stories
spreadsheet. This is because these projects
will be managed by different officers in
delivery.
Activity plan
Researching archive newspaper reports,
photographs, family history workshops,
creative writing workshops, visits to
locations of “Tin Towns” and surviving
examples, identifying new homes that were
built to house communities / businesses
displaced as a result of the building of the
reservoirs 1830 - 1929.
Outputs
Exhibition of work / images / readings of
creative writing
Workshops in which experiences are shared
over a meal (e.g. Irish dancing)
Outcomes
Different communities sharing stories,
working together, reduction in barriers
between communities, increased trust
and understanding of what it is like to be a
new arrival / economic migrant enhanced
community cohesion.
Story 3: Flood!
Flood! – A documentary style film which
will provide a retrospective on the 1864
and 2007 flood events, using historic
pictures, reporting, archive video footage
and vox pops of memories of 25th June
2007, interwoven with information
about the latest research in natural flood
management.
There has already been a lot of work done
on 1864 Flood e.g. https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=0rjqlurHK7U and http://www.
mick-armitage.staff.shef.ac.uk/sheffield/
flood.html, however the story of this disaster
is not widely known outside of Sheffield.
There is also a great deal of footage
432 SLLP LCAP Projects

available of the 2007 flood and most people
have clear memories of where they were
and what they saw on that day.
Natural flood management is a key
component of the Working with Water
project within the SLLP partnership.
This is an opportunity to use people’s
understanding of and experiences of historic
flood events as a platform to showcase the
opportunities being presented by natural
flood management techniques.
Activity plan
• Working with local community groups,
interested individuals and stakeholders
involved in the management of water in
Sheffield Lakeland, to record local people
recounting their memories of the 2007
flood: where they were, what they were
doing, how the flood made them feel on
the day and about the rivers long term.
(Flood victims often talk about a long
term relationship of suspicion with their
local stream after a flood incident).
• Collating archive images, newspaper
articles and other first person accounts of
the flood of 1864, including stories of the
flood event and disaster management,
public inquiry which followed.
• Visits and volunteering opportunities in
natural flood management projects in the
headwaters of the rivers.
• Visits to other communities repeatedly
affected by flood where more work
has been done with natural flood
management e.g. Todmorden to share
experiences, hopes and fears.
• Talks and presentations (locally and at
relevant conferences).
Outputs
• The Flood story will underpin the
interpretation of a waymarked flood
commemoration heritage trail from Dale
Dike reservoir to Malin Bridge.
• A documentary style film that leads the
viewer through a long view of historic
events and shared experiences into a
discussion of flood risks. The aim is to
achieve a broadcast quality film, which
can be used for talks and presentations in
a wide range of settings - from schools, to
Bradfield Flickfest to the Showroom Cinema
and which could also be used as part of
discussions around flood management.
There would be an opportunity to enter the
film of this type in the Global Sustainability
Film Awards (Eco-BAFTAs).
The budget for this project is derived from:
Telling Local Stories £10,000
Digital Landscape £4000
Arts in the Landscape £7000
Addition funding which will deliver physical
interpretation along the flood heritage trail
will come from Gateways and Access to the
Countryside / A Landscape for Everyone to
Enjoy strands.
Additional funding which will enable
volunteers to participate in natural flood
management projects will come from the
Volunteering and / or Working with Water
strands.
Story 4. Celebrating the Heritage Lottery in
the Sheffield Lakeland
A web based slide show that identifies and
captures key images of the wide range of
Heritage Lottery Funded projects which have
impacted the area, from ‘Stone to Steel’ and
‘Dungworth and Bradfield WW1’ project to
the rebuilding of Cutgate Path and the Peak
District wide Sky dancer project.
Outputs
• A place where the previous, combined
contributions of the lottery can be viewed.
• A short report placing the SLLP programme
within the context of the Heritage Lottery.
SLLP LCAP Projects
433

The budget for this project is derived fully
from this programme and will be used to
engage a local research consultant and
designer.
Digital landscape researcher £6,000 (no VAT)
Designer £2,000 (no VAT)
Supporting documents
https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=0rjqlurHK7U
http://www.mick-armitage.staff.shef.ac.uk/
sheffield/flood.html
Other Partners and Organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• Sheffield University Department of English
Literature
• NFU Young Farmers
• Sheffield College Agriculture Students
• Yorkshire Water
• Community Archaeology project officer
(SCC)
• SYAS
• Stocksbridge and District History Society
• Stocksbridge Community Forum
• Stepping Out project and Stepping out
project officer (SRWT)
• Stocksbridge Steel Valley Project
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
• Conversation Club – letter of support tbc
• St Anne’s Catholic Primary School - letter
of support tbc
• Liberty Steel, Stocksbridge - letter of
support tbc
• Sheffield LAF
• Bradfield Parish Council archivist.
• Bradfield Walkers Welcome and
Stocksbridge Walkers Welcome
• Loxley Valley Protection Society
• Rivelin Valley Conservation Volunteers
• Bradfield Village Hall
• Lomas Hall, Stannington
How does the project contribute to our
Vision
Better understanding of the changes that
have occurred and are occurring in the
landscape, farmscape, waterscape and
communities.
Strategic fit
Story 1: Links to current issues: Right to
roam, BREXIT The Outdoor City Economic
Strategy
Story 2: Links to current issues: How
communities react to change over which
they have no control. Sheffield Council
Cohesion and Integration Strategy
Story 3: Links to current issues: Flood
management, The Paris Agreement –
Climate Action
The Sheffield Waterways Strategy – City of
Rivers
How does the project meet one or more
SLLP Programme Objective (and how)
1. A more connected and resilient
landscape: Story 3 – using creative media
to discuss climate change and flood risk
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors: Story 1 – capturing a permanent
archive of changes in rural life. Story 3 –
capturing an archive of memories of the
2007 Sheffield Flood
4. Better understanding of the local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
434 SLLP LCAP Projects

experience and enjoy: Story 2 – increased
understanding of the heritage of the
area, enhancing interest when visiting the
reservoirs and enhanced sense of place,
local esteem in the achievements of the
people who built them. Working towards
community cohesion objectives.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for people
10 people working in the land-based sector
will have their oral histories recorded.
20 people will have their experiences /
memories of people of flood recorded,
promoted and archived as a permanent
record.
2 locations where natural flood
management work is taking place will be
recorded.
Story 1: Community engagement
opportunities: Students, groups working
with older people, NFU, Ramblers -
opportunities for intergenerational
discussion and differing perspectives on
land and access.
Story 2: Community engagement
opportunities - a settled community like
Stocksbridge working together with new
arrivals to Sheffield city, gaining different
perspectives from each other. (What
threads do different communities add to
the tapestry that is Sheffield).
Story 3: Community engagement
opportunities - communities all along the
river valleys, Little Don, Upper Don, Loxley,
Rivelin to document their experiences of
flooding and meet with other communities
with similar experiences.
TOTAL:
• At least 10 people working in the landbased
sector will have had their oral
history recorded
• At least 10 people will volunteer their time
in archive research
• At least 20 people will have had their
experiences of the 2007 Sheffield Flood
recorded.
24 people will have received training in
taking oral histories or film making
1000 (includes people attending showings
of the film, presentations or visiting touring
exhibitions) will have learned more about
heritage.
10 people will have volunteered their time
Outcomes for communities
Outcomes: The story of the 1864 Sheffield
Flood is known wider than Sheffield. A
platform for discussion about the challenges
and opportunities of flood management,
including natural flood management is
created.
New arrivals from the city, communities
from Stocksbridge and people living in the
Don, Loxley and Rivelin Valleys.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
35 Priority species.
Story 1 will capture anecdotal changes
in farming landscape and changes in
abundance of priority species and the
reasons why people who work in the
landscape think this is happening.
36. Digital landscape
All stories will make extensive use of
digital technology.
SLLP LCAP Projects
435

37. Evidencing ecosystem services
We will promote natural flood
management ideas through the Flood
Story.
38. Community engagement
The stories will engage people from
different generations and different
backgrounds from within and without
the partnership area and will break down
barriers and enhance trust.
39. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters.
We will collate and relate the story of
the heritage Lottery in our landscape.
Recognition of HLF support across
all published media, plus conference
presentation opportunities, digital
media, potential to enter internationally
recognised film award.
Changes of staff mean that contacts
established during development phase
are lost – maintain contacts through “stand
down period” between the end of the
development phase and start of delivery.
Ensure good handover notes between
Development and Delivery stages.
Changes of staff in partner organisations.
Ensure delivery partners are fully aware of
the level of commitment they are entering
into.
Climate Change
Story 3 “Flood!” directly addresses the
challenges of climate change and
anticipated increased flood risks.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
A legal agreement may be required for the
retention and sharing of any permanent
archives created.
Operational
These are primarily revenue projects. We
will work with partners to ensure that as far
as possible materials created are retained in
an accessible format and available freely for
use by others.
Strategic
A stronger sense of physical place and of
each communities place with it.
Risks
Insufficient recruitment to activities – ensure
the contacts for story one are securely
established and timetabled before we start
work.
436 SLLP LCAP Projects

Telling Local Stories
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Management Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Project Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Tools 500 500 800
Materials 100 516 100 516 100 300 100 100 100 415
Professional fees 1000 2000 2000 2000 2000 1000 2000 2000 2000 1000
4500 4500
2000 2000 2000 2000
Non recoverable VAT 20 203.2 320 663.2 420 460 400 720 420 420 900 283
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer training 600 600
Volunteer support budget 100 100 100 100 100
Non recoverable VAT 120 20 120 20 20 20 20
Funding area
Publicity and promotion 100 150 150 100
Non recoverable VAT 20 30 30 20
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
£46,016.40
SLLP LCAP Projects
437

A Landscape for Everyone to Enjoy - physical access
Volunteers improving accessibility, replacing a stile with a kissing gate
Lead partners
SRWT, PDNPA, SCC RoW, SVP, Walkers are
Welcome, Yorkshire Water
A project around improving accessibility
to our Landscape heritage. A detailed
assessment of access and barriers to
access was carried out on our behalf by
the Outdoor Recreation research Group
(ORRG). This has driven the physical access
and information elements of this project.
Physical work to help people access out
heritage will be delivered by a range of
partners and will include:
• Improvements to our PRoW network at
key locations; Redmires, Loxley Valley and
between the reservoirs of Langsett and
Midhope.
• The creation of a ‘multi-ability’ easy walk
around Langsett Reservoir.
• Restoration of a traditional pack horse
route across the moors to Cutgate path.
• Improvements to nature reserve access
and facilities to help more people discover
these special places.
Full project description
Projects with separate descriptions
Access to Heritage
Steel valley Project
The final step: completion of the Langsett
Circuit (permissive path)
Yorkshire Water
Restoration of North America Path
Moors For The Future
Enjoying Lakeland Nature Reserves
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
438 SLLP LCAP Projects

Access to Heritage
Lead partner
Steel Valley Project
The project will be run by the Steel Valley
Project in close collaboration with Sheffield
City Council Public Rights of Way, who
manage footpaths, bridleways and byways
in the SLLP project area.
150 word summary
The project will improve access to key
gateways and routes in the SLLP area at
Redmires, Loxley Valley and Langsett, to
help a wide range of people experience the
unique heritage of this area.
The public rights of way that will be
improved as part of this project have
been identified through the Access &
Gateways consultancy project, which
included significant public consultation.
SLLP partners, landowners and statutory
organisations have been involved in the
project development to ensure a joined up
approach to access to heritage, identifying
priorities accordingly.
Barriers to access have been identified
during site condition surveys and work will
be carried out to remove or improve these,
increasing access to a range of landscape
heritage features.
Steel Valley Project will carry out the
work with their team of volunteers, giving
members of the local community the
opportunity to be involved in practical
access improvement work.
Full project description
Redmires
There is a wealth of natural, social and built
heritage around this upland reservoir. With
SSI moorlands, gritstone outcrops and
waterways that provide homes for some
of Sheffield’s iconic and protected species
and have played their role in human history
throughout the ages.
SLLP LCAP Projects
439

Access here is via an extensive network
of paths, including a flat, level and wellsurfaced
‘easy going trail’ which follows a
conduit which is home to protected water
voles.
Improvements to the footpath link between
the end of the easy going trail and the
Sheffield City Council car park at Redmires
has been identified as key to accessing the
WWI trenches on ‘Hill 60’, used for army
training alongside the SSI moorland. The
moorland has been damaged and eroded
by walkers leaving the path due the very
boggy conditions found under foot on the
current path.
The following improvements would be
made utilising Steel Valley Project staff,
volunteers and where necessary contractors.
• Improve links from the Redmires car park
to Redmires Road and the public footpath
to the north.
• Re-surface the 30 metre section of path
between the car park and the public
footpath, either side of the sleeper bridge
to 1.2 metres in width.
• Replace the gate post on the latch side
and reconnect the timber rails.
• Install 40 metres of stone pitching on the
eroded steep path.
• Remove the stile and install a 1.2 metre
wide wooden gate to increase access.
• Install 15 metres of stone pitching on the
braided muddy section of path.
• Install 30 metres of stone flagging across
the water-logged area.
Loxley Valley
The River Loxley’s fast flowing waters have
provided water power for centuries and
evidence of the valley’s industrial history
can be seen right along its length with
numerous dams still in existence.
The Loxley Valley was at the epicentre of
the Great Sheffield Flood in 1864 when Dale
Dyke dam failed, spewing water down the
valley leading to the loss of 17 lives.
The valley has an extensive network of paths
and the ‘Loxley Valley Walk’ runs from Malin
Bridge up to Damflask Reservoir, passing
closely by much of the valley’s industrial
heritage on the way.
Improvements to some sections of this path
have been identified as key to removing
barriers to access and improving some
sections of the route to provide consistent
surfacing. This will encourage more people
to use the route in its entirety, enabling
them to access the rich industrial heritage
of the valley.
The following improvements would be
made utilising Steel Valley Project staff,
volunteers and where necessary contractors.
• Remove steel beams and install a steel
gate, which allows a wider range of users
to access the path.
• Install 160 metres at 3 metres in width of
aggregate to create a level, well-draining
surface on a section of muddy path.
• Upgrade of wooden chicane to allow
all permitted users to access the public
footpath whilst ensuring others cannot
access it easily.
• Install 365 metres at 1.5 metres in width of
aggregate to create a level, well-draining
surface on a section of muddy and
narrowed path, in addition to improving
the stability of the path alongside the mill
pond.
• Install 160 metres at 3 metres in width of
aggregate to create a level, well-draining
surface on a muddy section of path.
• Remove a section of stone wall and install
a steel gate to enable a wider range of
users to access the path.
440 SLLP LCAP Projects

Langsett
Langsett is Sheffield’s largest reservoir and
nestles high above Stockbridge amongst
moorland, woodland and farmland on the
edge of the Peak District.
There is a wealth of heritage here, with the
SSSI moorlands alongside recent WWII
history, including an abandoned farm that
was used for tank target practice!
There are numerous paths around Langsett
reservoir and a path that provides a link
between Langsett and the road leading
to Midhopestones, part of the Friends of
the Peak District Boundary Walk, has been
identified as a priority for improvements.
The following improvements would be
made utilising Steel Valley Project staff,
volunteers and where necessary contractors.
- Install 20 metres at 1.2 metres in width of
aggregate to create a level, well-draining
surface on this section of water-logged and
eroded path.
Supporting documents
Access and Gateways to the Landscape
Appraisal, SHU ORRG, 2018
Loxley Valley Design Statement, Loxley Valley
Design Group, 2003
Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan,
SCC, 2007
Access to Heritage Condition surveys
(Appendix 15)
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
Sheffield City Council Public Rights of Way
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
Stocksbridge Walkers Are Welcome,
Bradfield Walkers Are Welcome & Sheffield
Local Access Forum
SLLP LCAP Projects
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
‘A wilder, more natural and resilient
landscape of native clough woodland,
descending down from the moorland slopes
to the reservoirs, streams and farmlands
below, alive to the sound of curlews and
lapwings, and crossed by a lattice work of
drystone walls and accessible paths and
bye-ways. A landscape that provides clean air
and water, supports wildlife, helps to reduce
flooding and improves peoples’ health and
wellbeing. A landscape for everyone to value,
enjoy, understand – and feel part of.’
The project will help to improve members of
the public’s access to this historic landscape.
The work will also prevent erosion and
degradation of the adjoining habitats, areas
of which are SSSI.
Strategic fit
The Outdoor City Strategy 2015-
‘Infrastructure to support a quality
experience’- this project will contribute
towards improved infrastructure to enable
access to the outdoors.
The Move More Plan 2015- ‘Empowered
Communities’ and ‘active environments’-
this project will engage volunteers in their
environment encouraging them to be active
in the outdoors leading to positive health
outcomes.
Green and Open Space Strategy 2010-
‘Green connections for people and wildlife’-
this project will provide improved access for
people.
The Peak District, Dark Peak (Yorkshire
Fringe) Strategy 2009- ‘Opportunities
should be sought to improve recreational
facilities and opportunities within the area,
without affecting the landscape character’
This project will significantly improve
recreational facilities in a strategic and
well researched way to maximise positive
impacts and minimise negative impact on
the surrounding landscape.
441

How does your project contribute to our
combined statement of significance?
This project will see work carried out on
both the dramatic, open moorlands and
the steep wooded broadleaf woodlands,
which provide so much of the character of
this unique area, alongside the reservoirs.
These landscapes not only provide an
essential connection from the River Don
in the lowlands to the moorland uplands,
but also a connection to our industrial and
cultural past, having often been preserved
from development due to their inaccessible
topography.
This project will engage the local
community with these unique landscapes
and their history, improving access to it,
providing important recreation space and
opportunities to learn about techniques to
manage it for the future, whilst mitigating
threats to it from increasing pressure from
recreation on a public rights of way network
that requires new investment for the future
to help a wider audience experience and
enjoy it.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
1. A more connected and resilient
landscape.
Public rights of way will be improved,
improving connections for people and
making paths and adjoining habitat more
resilient to damage.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife.
The path network will be more joined up,
with some barriers to access removed
or improved and challenging sections of
routes being made easier to negotiate,
therefore more joined up.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors.
Members of the public will better value
the network of rights of way through their
increased accessibility allowing easier
access for visitors.
This project will run alongside the
interpretation project, which will
include measures to increase people’s
understanding of these routes and allow
them to access them more easily and
better understand the heritage to which
they enable access to.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy.
Volunteers will help to look carry out the
practical work required to improve these
routes, learning about countryside skills
and the area’s heritage.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured)
Cross reference with the HLF Monitoring
Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
With 3 erosion control projects and 5 access
controls improved for access an important
section of our PRoW network will be better
managed.
0.82 km of existing footpath will be in better
condition
Outputs for people
20 people will have volunteered their time,
developed skills and learned about heritage
while working on this project.
Outcomes for communities
Public rights of way will be improved,
making paths and adjoining habitat more
resilient to damage from erosion which is a
negative environmental impact.
442 SLLP LCAP Projects

People will have the chance to volunteer to
improve the paths enabling them to learn
about the heritage of the area in which they
will be working.
Access will be improved to the sites,
enabling a wider number of people to enjoy
the heritage and wildlife across the SLLP
area, making our area a better place to visit.
Consents required
Sheffield City Council Public Rights of Way
have consented to the proposals.
Consent may need to be obtained from
Natural England on the section of SSSI at
Redmires if adjoining land needs to be
utilised but not for work on the PROW itself.
Storage of materials and equipment on
adjoining land holdings may be required
during the delivery of works.
Photographs
This steel vehicle barrier is constructed from
large steel beams and is a barrier to access
for prams, wheelchairs and other users
accessing the main route along the Loxley
Valley Walk.
Removing this barrier will increase access
for a wider range of users and access to
motorised vehicles will continue to be
prevented using a purpose built access
control.
This section of footpath at Redmires is
extremely water-logged across a relatively
extensive section of footpath, making access
difficult and desire lines around the wet area
have braided the path, causing erosion and
damage to the surrounding grassland and
heathland (SSSI). This would be improved
using stone flagging to improve access and
further damage the surrounding habitat
mitigated against.
Extensive footpath widening on this right of
way at Langsett has occurred due to boggy
conditions and significant damage has
occurred to the adjacent woodland ground
flora close to the Upper Don River.
Surfacing this footpath will improve access
and allow the regeneration of the woodland
ground flora to occur and prevent further
erosion of soil into the nearby river.
SLLP LCAP Projects
443

Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
Heritage Highways - There is potential
for volunteers from both projects to work
together to identify and research the history
of the routes being improved and to uncover
their stories an contribute towards the series
of new guided routes.
Hidden History - There is potential to both
feed into and benefit from this project, with
the potential for new information on the
archaeology of the area that may shed light
on the wider context of the history of the
landscape this project will increase access to.
Audience development - Work needs to be
done on the interpretation on and about
the routes that this project aims to improve,
helping members of the public to engage
with and learn about the history of these
sites.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
1. Priority species recovery
SSSI habitat will be safeguarded and given
the chance to regenerate through the
work carried out in this project.
2. Telling local stories
People will have the chance to volunteer
to improve the paths enabling them to
learn about the heritage of the area in
which they will be working, as well as
improving access to it for the wider public.
3. Digital landscape (i.e. using technology)
Information about the improved routes
created by this project can be provide
through digital media.
4. Monitoring and evaluation
Feedback will be sought from volunteers
who participate in the project to assess
their engagement.
5. Evidencing ecosystem services
N/A
6. Community engagement
Volunteers will be engaged in the project
and will participate in the practical
work required to complete the different
aspects of the work, this will include
informal training.
7. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters.
Steel Valley Project will promote this
project through its website, social media
and local media contacts.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
When undertaking practical work, SVP
staff, volunteers and contractors will clean
PPE and equipment to prevent the transfer
of diseases, spores and seeds to contain
potential biohazards.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Operational
Sheffield Public Rights of Way department
will continue to maintain the footpath,
bridleway and byway network in line with
their statutory duties.
Strategic
Volunteers will be engaged in the project
and will develop an understanding of the
sites and their heritage.
Partner’s Environmental Policy
Steel Valley Project’s Environmental Policy is
attached.
444 SLLP LCAP Projects

Risks
Lack of volunteer support - this will be
mitigated by SVPs volunteer recruitment
and support, including providing
transportation for volunteers to this remote
site.
Objections from neighbouring landowners,
although Sheffield City Council consent
has been gained. Should neighbouring
landowners raise concerns the Sheffield City
Council Right of Way Team have agreed to
act as intermediates, they have said they
expect no issues.
Climate Change
The project will contribute towards habitat
restoration alongside public rights of way
and safeguard routes against future erosion
from extreme weather.
SLLP LCAP Projects
445

The final step: completion of the Langsett Circuit (permissive path)
Countryside stroll, walking Langsett Gateway the northern side of the reservoir
Lead partner
Yorkshire Water
Summary
Langsett has been identified as a significant
‘Gateway’ to the Sheffield Lakelands and
Peak District National Park (PDNP). Many
people visit for countryside enjoyment
and there is mounting pressure on the
countryside arising as a result. With easy
car access, good car parking, information,
toilet facilities and nearby pub and café this
reservoir in particular attracts a wide range
of visitors.
The existing initial ‘northern’ walking route
offers easy and safe walking around part
of the reservoir. Unfortunately the existing
southern section around the reservoir
involves climbing Cutgate and traversing the
environmentally sensitive designated moors,
using public rights of way.
This project will complete an easy walking
(inclusive) circuit around the reservoir so as
wider range of people as possible can visit
and enjoy our landscape heritage.
Full project description
Yorkshire Water Langsett Reservoir is a key
‘Gateway’ site for the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership. In addition to being
very popular with our local community
(Sheffield), and easy access via major roads
means that this is the gateway to SLLP
that people from further afield mostly use
(ORRG 2018). Langsett has a 2x car parks
immediately off the main A616 Sheffield to
Holmfirth road. On site there are toilets and
information and immediately adjacent to
the site are a café, and public house. There
is a Peak District National Park Ranger
service office and base. Langsett is our most
outward facing gateway facility.
446 SLLP LCAP Projects

In line with Yorkshire Water’s access strategy
our objective is to develop Langsett as a
robust destination for families to enjoy the
landscape, countryside peace and tranquillity
and heritage of the Sheffield Lakeland. The
aim is to provide inclusive access for all with
positive designs to support those who have
physical disabilities. While mountain biking
is an increasingly popular activity in the
area, the Landscape Partnership has agreed
that as an activity it does not fall within our
current plans of funding so this project is
purely about walking.
Along the northern section of Langsett
reservoir Yorkshire Water has constructed
a woodland walk (title image) which runs
parallel to the reservoir wall and as far as is
practicable remains levels and offers views
of the reservoir and the wider countryside
whilst enjoying a woodland setting.
The route is compressed aggregate of a
minimum 1.8m width. With cross drains to
keep it dry and retaining walls (timbers) to
retain minimal slopes this quality of path is
suitable for many users, including those with
mobility issues.
This quality of path does not currently go
completely around the reservoir. Although
there is information at the car park (image 2)
there is no opportunity to fully explain what
walking conditions people will encounter, and
at present the full circuit is more strenuous
than early conditions would indicate.
When walkers reach the western end of the
reservoir they cross the Little Don river as it
enters Langsett reservoir and then ascend
Cutgate, an historic track previously restored
with the help of HLF. Image 3 shows people
climbing that track with the reservoir wall
below. Walkers then have to walk out onto
the Moorland (SSSI/SPA/SAC) and use
Cutgate and part of the North America
path to continue along the route (Image
4 & 5). On a busy day you can visit this site
and see many people walking the moors
in inappropriate clothing, in addition their
numbers are causing excessive erosion and
the lack of understanding results in dogs
running loose and conflict with other users
and its environmental designations.
Upon returning to the reservoir at North
America farm (ruin used for target practice
in WW2) walkers can either walk back
out onto the moors to complete the
circuit or use the permitted route through
‘Thickwood’ indicated by a yellow line on
image 2. This route is permitted by Yorkshire
Water but has not been engineered so is
basically a very heavily used desire line on
natural surface path, image 6. The route is
impassable by those using access support
like wheelchairs.
This project will complete the Langsett
Reservoir Easy Circular Inclusive Walk by
creating a new 1.8m wide level aggregate
path running adjacent to the south wall
of the reservoir. This path will be of the
same quality as the northern path, allowing
constant and easy walking (inclusive) all the
way around this, most popular, reservoir.
The route will run through Mauk Royd and
Thickwoods as per image 6. (note the cycle
route is not part of this project but fits
within the wider vision for gateways to the
Sheffield Lakeland).
Other Partners and Organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
Yorkshire Water
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
Yorkshire Water, SLLP partners, PDNPA,
Experience Community CIC, Natural
England, Landowners of Hingcliff Common/
North America.
Target audience is those currently using the
location for recreation, people with physical
disabilities, families, those taking physical
exercise for health and wellbeing.
SLLP LCAP Projects
447

Images
Image 2 the route map in Langsett car park
Image 5. North America path erosion from footfall (bridleway)
Image 3. The zig-zag climb up Cutgate above the
reservoir wall.
Image 6. Desire path through Thick Wood
Image 7. The new route
Image 4. North America path
448 SLLP LCAP Projects

Meet one or more SLLP Programme Area
(and how)
A more connected and resilient landscape
Concentrating on making our gateway sites
more user friendly and offering alternatives
to less robust places means that we are
adding resilience to otherwise fragile parts
of the landscape. Of the estimated 200,000
people visiting Langsett for a walk (or a
cycle) many do not want to visit the higher
moors and a large number of visitors would
undoubtedly remain on a woodland walk,
this would reduce pressure on the moors
considerably. The proposed path will also
reduce the assent and descent from the
current route giving opportunities for a wider
range of people to access the countryside.
The use of engineered solutions will reduce
the impact on flora and erosion of the area.
better understanding of the local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy
This more user friendly route and will
encourage a wider range of people to visit
the area and enjoy/become engaged in
the area. The route will open new areas for
those with disabilities. Interpretation will
also be part of the project.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured)
Outcomes for heritage
Yorkshire Water is a major facilities manager
in the area, once they have committed/
invested to allowing access via this route
they will also commit to maintain the route
on their land, this means there will be a
‘managed’ route for the majority of users.
At present the local authority is responsible
for ‘managing’ the access over the moors
which is not in ownership of Yorkshire Water.
Interpretation will also be part of the project.
Outcomes for people
Langsett reservoir is the reservoir with car
park, toilets and local café and public house.
As such many people come to visit. This
new path will mean people will have more
opportunity to visit and enjoy the area.
Outcomes for communities
Currently the upland (moors) paths of
Cutgate and North America are used to
circumvent the reservoir, this new route
will reduce pressure and damage on
these heritage routes and impacts on the
environmental designated moors. This new
path will result in significant reduction
in use of moorland paths. Negative
environmental impacts will be reduced
More people and a wider range of people
will have engaged with heritage
This route will be promoted as an easy
access (inclusive) route, engineered for
people who have physical disabilities.
People will be encouraged to visit and
explore our landscape and heritage
(including existing WW2 interpretation) in
safety.
Consents required
PDNPA Planning
Peak District Park Authority planning
permission is still required, this is in process
with the route design and specification
development, prior to planning application.
Liaison between Yorkshire Water and the
PDNPA and the SLLP and the PDNPA is
regular in this area.
Demonstrate Links / Cross fertilisation to
at least 2 other projects
In an accompanying project, North America
Path, the Moors for the Future team will be
restoring and improving parts of the North
America path, although the current route
around Langsett uses a different northern
connecting bridleway (also called north
SLLP LCAP Projects
449

America Path) between Cutgate and North
America path reducing pressure on this
route will contribute to overall protection of
the moorland habitats.
The project ‘Connecting steps’ aims to
engage a wider range of the community,
the connecting steps team will organise
and run an early event to demonstrate and
promote the new easy walking route.
Budget overspend
This is large project across difficult ground,
until work commences the exact quantities
of materials and amount of groundwork
required is not certain. Yorkshire Water have
appointed project designers to undertake
detailed assessments, should the project
still go over budget the risk is retained by
Yorkshire Water.
Biosecurity
This project will conform to Yorkshire Water
biosecurity requirements.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Yorkshire Water have committed to
retaining and as far as is practicable,
maintaining this route for a minimum of ten
years from the end of the project.
How will you monitor outputs and record
success
We will report quarterly in line with HLF
submission agreements, where we will
include targets met and not met etc.
In addition we will allot £1,000 from the
HLF budget to commission an independent
report in line with the SLLP core M&E
programme at the end of the project.
Partner’s Environmental Policy
Attached.
Risks
No planning permission yet given.
This project requires planning permission
from the Peak District National Park
Authority. This has been requested, together
with supporting information on the net
environmental, economic and landscape
benefits incurred. Should it not be given and
it looks like no facility will be allowed this
project will have to be removed.
450 SLLP LCAP Projects

North America Path
North America Path
Lead Partner
Moors for the Future Partnership/Peak
District National Park Authority
150 word summary
Of the four iconic cross moorland paths
in the SLLP area: Long Causeway, Duke
Road, Cut Gate and North America Path it
is the last that has not received significant
attention recently. This project will improve
the 1.5km of upland bridleway between Cut
Gate and Langsett via the abandoned farm
at North America.
Full project description
North America Farm is an abandoned
farmstead on the Langsett moors. It was
destroyed during the second world war by
being used for target practice by tanks on
the Midhope tank range. The route forms
a smaller circular route with the iconic Cut
Gate bridleway, which was a pack horse
route across the Pennines and is now an
important recreational route, particularly for
cyclists.
Work was undertaken on Cut Gate during the
Moors For The Future HLF project in 2005,
which is very well regarded by local users.
This was a key aspect of that project and
the current proposed route will improve the
quality of this route, which may have been
impacted by increased traffic on Cut Gate.
Creating sustainable path surfaces on
moorland paths is critical to preventing
damage to the adjacent moorland and this
route has suffered from that. The route is
widening to several metres in many places
because the path surface has become
bare and eroding peat through erosion of
bog vegetation, leading to ruts caused by
mountain bike tyres and horse hooves.
SLLP LCAP Projects
451

As outlined above, It is regularly used by
people to create a circular route from the
Langsett reservoir, to Cut Gate and back,
and is particularly busy during weekends
and holidays. The number of visits that
it gets is damaging the internationally
important blanket bog habitat of the South
Pennine Moors Special Area of Conservation,
which the route crosses.
Note all of North America path is in the SLLP
area.
Work will include creating a permanent
path surface, through a variety of
techniques, which will include stone pitched
water bars and flagstone path laying but
will predominantly be an aggregate reversal
technique, using locally sourced material.
This will help to create and define one line
across the blanket bog, following a full
consultation with all user groups. These
techniques are all widely used in the Peak
District and were used to great effect during
the restoration of Cut Gate.
Supporting documents
A full outline specification of the route is
included as Appendix 15
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
Whilst the majority of the work will be
undertaken by contractors, because of the
nature of the works required (which will
include flying in of certain materials and use
of excavators), procured through the Peak
District National Park Authority’s Standing
Orders, there is the possibility of working
with the active user groups in the area,
such as Ride Sheffield. This will depend
on the results of the wider stakeholder
consultation.
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
As discussed, North America is a key route
in the use of the Langsett area by walkers,
cyclists and horse riders. Work is proposed,
through a separate crowd-funded project,
to higher sections of Cut Gate, together
with the continuation of that route onto the
National Trust’s land towards the Derwent
reservoirs. The work on North America farm,
which is a priority route for improvement
for Sheffield City Council, will help to make
this part of the local path network into a
sustainable route. However, whilst their a
wider benefits to the improvements on
North America, if those other sections do
not go ahead, this is a stand-alone project
which will significantly benefit the area of
the SLLP area.
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
The damage which is being caused to the
blanket bog habitat by the North America
route is a priority under numerous local,
national and international strategies.
Protection of land-based carbon is a key
priority to enable the UK’s commitments to
the Paris Agreement.
The land adjacent to the route is a part of
the South Pennine Moors SAC (designated
under the EU’s Habitat Directive) and
restoration of recreational routes within that
internationally important site is a key feature
(parts 5c and 5e) of the non-statutory Site
Improvement Plan (SIP141217). Creating a
sustainable path surface will also allow the
revegetation of bare and eroding peat on
either side of the route (part 1 of the Site
Improvement Plan). This is also required as
part of the improvements required under
UK SSSI legislation.
Work on other parts of the Peak District
moors has shown that creating a single
452 SLLP LCAP Projects

formal line significantly increases the area
of blanket bog habitat that is used by
breeding waders, which are a key feature of
the South Pennine Moors Special Protection
Area under the EU’s Birds Directive.
Balancing conservation and recreation
are the primary purposes of the Peak
District National Park Authority and
the improvement to this path supports
the current Peak District National Park
Corporate and Strategic Management Plans.
Improving access to nature, which this
project will support for the local area is a
key feature of Defra’s 25 Year Environment
Plan and the project directly supports three
of the UN’s sustainable development goals,
which is a government commitment (3, 9, 13
and 15).
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy.
The Sheffield Lakeland incorporates the
valleys, reservoirs, moorland slopes and
moors to the west of Sheffield. Access to
the wildest moors via gateways such as
Langsett is important if people are to better
understand the heritage of the area. The
most trodden (and cycled) routes require
improvement if they are to cope with
increased traffic.
Outcomes for communities
Negative environmental impacts will be
reduced as erosion on North America path
is causing damage to the Midhope Moors
area of the Moorland Site of Special Scientific
Interest.
Consents required
From public bodies
Sheffield City Council PRoW have given
permission for this work, they are match
funding the project. Note, they have
confirmed that this is non-statutory route
improvement capital work.
3rd party landowner agreements.
We have confirmed with Sheffield City Public
Rights of Way team that all improvement
works can be can be carried out without
requiring landowner agreement.
Other
Natural England are required to give consent
for access restoration on SSSIs, this has not
been confirmed yet but there should be
no issues as this is not a new track and our
improvements will protect and enhance the
landscape not detract from it.
HLF priorities
Outputs for heritage
Heritage will be in better condition because
America path is an historic route of cultural
importance, improving its condition will
protect it now and for many years to come.
SLLP LCAP Projects
453

Images
Map of North America Path identifying required work area
454 SLLP LCAP Projects

Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
The area south of the Langsett Gateway, where
people can access and enjoy our landscape
is the focus of a number of projects, these
include: Langsett completing the circuit and a
new nature reserve at Midhope and Woodland
Heart. Improvements to facilitate access and
protect this important heritage route will
form part of the network of important work
the Landscape Partnership is carrying out
in the immediate area. This historic route
will also show links with Heritage Highways,
where we expect the project leads to include
information on this path in their work.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
8. Priority species recovery
9. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
Moors For The Future will maintain standard
biosecurity procedures for this work.
However it must be noted that all work
carried out will be on a well-used and
enjoyed PRoW, therefore there is little to be
managed.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
North America Path is a public bridleway,
we are undertaking no work that will require
third party or legal agreements around the
retention of a facility.
Operational
Moors For The Future have extensive
experience of upland path restoration and
improvement. Our design standards are
such as to ensure, as far as is practicable,
that the route will not require additional
maintenance for 20 years.
Strategic
While North America path is a discrete
project sitting wholly within the Sheffield
Lakeland area it is part of a wider
Programme of access restoration and
improvement across the Dark Peak, which
includes several sections of Cutgate Path.
Partner’s Environmental Policy
The Moors for the Future Partnership has
three objectives:
1. To raise awareness of why the moors are
valuable and to encourage responsible
use and care of the landscape
2. To restore and conserve important
recreational and natural moorland
resources
3. To develop expertise on how to protect
and manage the moors sustainably
Risks
Failure to secure match funding or budget
over runs. Most of the funding is already in
place, of the £58,000 required M4TF only
need to find £13,000, we are experienced
programme managers and are confident
to underwrite this ourselves. We have used
existing projects and real costs to ‘calculate’
the cost of restoration.
Climate Change
Restoration of eroding PRoWs across
our moorlands is one way in which we
protect our peatland habitats and work
toward restoring these vital carbon sinks.
By absorbing carbon to produce peat
our moors help us reduce atmospheric
greenhouse gases.
SLLP LCAP Projects
455

Access to Heritage – SRWT Nature Reserves
Credit: Sarah Sidgwick: Wyming Brook
Lead partner
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
(SRWT)
150 word summary
This is a key project working to achieve the
following objectives:
2. Bigger, better and more joined up
natural environment for people and
wildlife.
4. A better understanding of the local
heritage with more people getting
involved to help look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy.
The project will improve physical access
to SRWT nature reserves allowing visitors
a more accessible & enjoyable visit to the
SLLP project area whilst retaining the natural
beauty of the local area. It will improve
paths and byways enabling people to enjoy,
experience and learn about natural heritage
which in turn should help improve peoples
health and wellbeing in a variety of ways.
Full project description
This project will deliver the following objectives:
Wyming Brook:
• Remove x3 A-frames and upgrade with x3
K-frames at key entrances to allow better
access for all.
456 SLLP LCAP Projects

• Remove x3 dilapidated horse hops and
replace at key entrances.
• Remove and replace x2 dilapidated
benches.
• Improve 15m of footpath adjacent to car
park entrance through a combination of
stone pitching and natural stone surfacing
plus drainage improvements.
• Redmires Road car park improvements
including resurfacing to repair ongoing
potholes, installation of a height barrier
to prevent ongoing fly-tipping, resolving
drainage issues and replacing natural log
vehicle barriers above steep drop.
• Scraping off build-up of leaf litter on a
boggy 50m section of Wyming Brook
drive to reinstate the existing surfacing
and excavate small drainage channel
adjacent.
• Install 35m (across several locations) of
stone pitching along the brook path.
• Upgrade flight of x25 steps at Rivelin Dam
entrance by replacing timber risers and
infilling with local natural stone (approx.
30m).
Fox Hagg:
• Installation of 25m stone pitching and
associated drainage channels required at
numerous boggy locations along this well
used desire line running parallel with the
River Rivelin.
Carr House Meadows:
• Remove and replace x3 dilapidated ladder
styles at x3 entrances to the reserve.
• Remove and replace x1 dilapidated kissing
gate at entrance to the reserve.
Benefits
Current infrastructure is old and in need
of investment to upgrade and refresh. The
proposed access improvements should
provide a greater visitor experience and
enjoyment of these stunning nature reserves
enabling people to learn about natural
heritage, which will also improve people’s
health and wellbeing. Difficult routes will
be made easier to use and the upgrading of
specific infrastructure should provide access
to a greater range of site users than before.
One of the project gateway/hubs sites would
significantly be improved.
Outputs
• X3 A-frames upgraded to K-frames.
• X3 Horse Hops upgraded.
• X2 benches upgraded.
• X155m of PRoW / Desire line upgraded.
• X1 Car park upgraded (resurfacing,
drainage improvements, height & vehicle
barriers).
• X1 Kissing gate upgraded.
• X3 Ladder stiles upgraded.
What happens after project?
SRWT will manage and maintain the sites
over the long-term supported by external
funding schemes where appropriate/
available.
Supporting documents
Sheffield City Council’s:
1. Green and Open Spaces strategy
2. Outdoor City – theoutdoorcity.co.uk
3. SLLP Access Consultation report (Access &
Gateways to the Landscape Appraisal).
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• Stocksbridge Steel Valley Project.
• SCC PRoW Unit.
• Yorkshire Water
SLLP LCAP Projects
457

• Other organisations benefitting or
taking part in your project or key target
audience.
• SCC PRoW Unit.
• Stocksbridge Steel Valley Project.
• SRWT Reserve Advisory Group (RAG).
• Yorkshire Water
We aim to achieve this by contributing to
the following objectives:
1. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife.
2. A better understanding of the local
heritage with more people getting
involved to help look after it – a landscape
for all to learn about, value, experience
and enjoy.
Strategic fit
It will help contribute towards SCC Green
and Open Spaces strategy and Outdoor City
programme.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife:
Provides a better joined up (more
accessible) natural environment for
people.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after
it – a landscape for all to learn about,
value, experience and enjoy: Better
access within the nature reserves will
enable people to experience and enjoy
the natural heritage on offer more easily
than before.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
Access improvements on nature reserves
have a limited positive impact on natural
and cultural heritage by helping keep
people on allowed routes.
Outcomes for communities
The Redmires Road car park height barrier
will help to deter the ongoing problem of
fly-tipping in the car park which is unsightly
and at times can be a health risk to visitors
and the environment / wildlife.
Physical access improvements on
difficult sections of PRoW and entrance
improvements should make it more
accessible to visit, experience and enjoy
the natural heritage of the nature reserves
for a wider range of people, particularly at
Wyming Brook.
Improved accessibility across the nature
reserves should provide a better place to
visit.
Consents required
Consent is In place from public body, SCC
PRoW Unit.
SRWT nature reserves in the SLLP area (see
next page):
The majority of the access works will take
place on Wyming Brook Nature Reserve.
Some small elements to be delivered on
Fox Hagg & Carr House Meadows nature
reserves.
Agden Bog & Hammonds Field do not lend
themselves to public access and therefore
no access works will take place on these
two nature reserves.
458 SLLP LCAP Projects

Photographs
All following photos credited to Rob Miller
unless otherwise stated.
Wyming Brook:
Above: Remove and replace log vehicle barriers on the
edge of the car park like for like.
Above: Wyming Brook car park in need of resurfacing
and drainage improvements.
Above: Wyming Brook car park entrance. Install height
barrier and horse hop at entrance including a need for
drainage improvements.
Above: Improve footpath adjacent to car park entrance
through a combination of stone pitching and natural
stone surfacing plus drainage improvements.
Above: Example of existing entrance: Remove and
replace old A-Frame & Horse Hop to refresh main
entrances and update with more appropriate and user
friendly infrastructure.
SLLP LCAP Projects
459

Above: Remove and replace x2 existing old benches to
provide resting points and places to sit and enjoy the
nature reserve surroundings.
Above: Remove and upgrade existing steps close to the
Rivelin Dam entrance to Wyming Brook.
Above: Scrape off build-up of leaf litter creating a boggy
area to expose surfacing beneath. Install drainage
channel adjacent to capture water and remove some
trees/scrub to prevent future issues.
Above: Improve access along the brook through stone
pitching / stone steps at numerous difficult sections
along the length of the route from Redmires Road Car
park to Wyming Brook Drive at Rivelin Dam. Also work to
try and protect the footpath from further water erosion
from the brook.
460 SLLP LCAP Projects

Fox Hagg Nature Reserve:
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
Community engagement, this project is
designed to permit more people to enjoy
our natural heritage.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
SRWT Biosecurity policy / procedure will be
followed.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
Operational
The nature reserves will continue to be
managed by SRWT under long-term lease
arrangements or ownership.
Strategic
Our legacy will be an enhanced access
network (bigger, better and more joined up);
ultimately making it more suitable for public
use in the longer term.
Above: Installation of stone pitching and drainage
channels required at numerous locations along this well
used desire running parallel with the River Rivelin.
We currently have no photos on file of the
proposed Carr House Meadows work items
but will obtain some soon.
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
SRWT Nature reserve project and Woodland
Heart, the access improvements will allow
more people to enjoy the benefits of our
conservation work
Partner’s Environmental Policy
SRWT’s environment policy will be followed.
Risks
Non-delivery, part-delivery – mitigated
by good project planning and progress
monitoring.
Maintain good working relationships with
the SCC PRoW unit to help implement
works.
In a number of places, particularly Wyming
Brook we will be able to carry out access
and wall repairs at the same time.
SLLP LCAP Projects
461

Physical Access
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Staff Salary 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 443 443
Pay increases 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Management Overheads 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172
Management of project 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227 227
Pay rate increase 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Office rent/recharge 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189 189
Non recoverable VAT 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Funding area
Project Overheads 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 166 166
Vehicle 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Travel for staff 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
Expenses for staff 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Training budget 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
PPE 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Non recoverable VAT 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Tools 415 415 415 415
Materials 3240 8187 990 5390 740 8280 1574 740 740 2074 740 740 6240 740 740
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Contractors 64230 45450 11715 3840 15261 5690 9855 3500 6920 9460
Non recoverable VAT 233 793 468 150 233 1652 517 150 233 1801 150 150 2525 150 150
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer/trainne travel 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111 111
Volunteer PPE 104 104 104 104
Volunteer training 260 260 260 260
Volunteer support budget 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18
Non recoverable VAT 87 87 87 87
Funding area
Publicity and promotion
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
£253,016.00
462 SLLP LCAP Projects

Gateways to the Landscape
(Reducing Barriers and Increasing Knowledge and Understanding)
A collection of confusing informational signs at the gateway to Langsett Reservoir, C. Watts
Lead partner
Sheffield Lakeland Core Project
150 word summary
“But there are no signs, how does anyone
know what not to do?” Emmet, Lego Movie
2014, Warner Bros
This project draws on the recommendations
of the Gateways and Access to the
Landscape Appraisal undertaken by ORRG
in 2017 to increase the accessibility of
the landscape by increasing knowledge
and understanding and reducing lack of
confidence as a significant barrier.
Gateways to improving landscape
accessibility can be informational and
physical jumping off points. In order to
develop a range of interventions, the
potential gateways have been divided into 5
categories:
A Highly used recreational hubs e.g.
Redmires
B Locally important gateway sites e.g.
Wadsley and Loxley Common
C Public transport gateways e.g. Malin
Bridge
D Gateways to information – such as
libraries, cafes and pubs or online such as
the Walkers are Welcome websites.
E Gateways to confidence – e.g. groups
which specialise in short, accessible walks
for new walkers e.g. Walking for Health
Stannington.
SLLP LCAP Projects
463

This project will:
1. Increase knowledge of existing access
opportunities in Sheffield Lakeland by
joining up the availability of pre-visit
information, improving on site orientation
and using signage to improve visitor
experience whilst protecting important
and sensitive heritage locations.
2. Work with land managers, interest
groups and other stakeholders to agree a
common set of values and management
approaches to protect the heritage of the
most popular recreational hubs.
3. Widen audience participation by
supporting the development of the
existing network of access groups and
directly providing targeted outreach
workshops.
4. Design new interpretation of the stories of
the landscape to increase understanding
and deepen engagement with the
heritage of the area.
Full project description
Gateways to the Landscape: (Reducing
Barriers and Increasing Knowledge and
Understanding)
The city of Sheffield is home to around
600,000 people and with a third of the local
authority boundary falling within the Peak
District National Park, prides itself on being
the `outdoor city`. The area is much loved by
sports enthusiasts – whether rock climbing,
off and on road cyclists, fell runners and
ramblers. The tradition of hill walking in
the area pre-dates the 1932 Kinder Mass
Trespass and is beautifully documented in
the Clarion series of guides. More recently,
the area has become a hub for road cyclists
keen to test their abilities against landmarks
such as the Côte de Wigtwizzle and Côte de
Ewden Heights which featured in 2014 Tour
de France.
In 2017, Sheffield Hallam University’s Outdoor
Recreation Research Group, (ORRG), was
commissioned to investigate the potential
to broaden the accessibility of the Sheffield
Lakeland area to people who are not already
sports enthusiasts and to identify real and
perceived barriers to the accessibility and
enjoyment of the landscape.
This project draws on the recommendations
of that report, the whole of which can be
found in Appendix 7: Access and Gateways to
the Landscape Appraisal.
The report found that it is the combination
of cultural and natural heritage which makes
the area so special for both local people and
city dwellers, combined with the fact that
Sheffield Lakeland is not well known outside
of Sheffield – a secret part of the national
park which is bypassed by most day-trippers.
The report further identified that there
was an opportunity to harness this
local distinctiveness, through further
interpretation, in order to add to people’s
understanding and enjoyment of the
area, and reinforce their engagement and
connectedness.
Many local groups are already active in
recording wildlife and history and sharing
the heritage and stories associated with
the landscape. The report recommended,
therefore, that the SLLP should focus on
working collaboratively with existing groups
to enable a broader range of people to enjoy
the area’s unique sense of place and its
connection to the development of Sheffield
as a city.
This approach will additionally conform to
the main local authorities’ (Sheffield City
Council and the Peak District National Park
Authority) own aspirations, alongside other
significant partners, such as Yorkshire Water.
ORRG undertook a wide ranging primary
survey of users on-site, users and non-users
at key destinations in the landscape, at
464 SLLP LCAP Projects

community events and with the general
public through an online survey. The online
survey was not targeted specifically to user
groups, but promoted via generic public
forums, to encourage non-users to respond.
There were a total of 1,026 responses to
the survey. Some of the more significant
findings are reproduced below, with the full
findings in Appendix 7.
In terms of barriers, the survey found a clear
distinction between people who already
access the landscape / natural environment,
who do not experience any barriers, and
those who are impeded by a lack of
information / awareness and clarity about
where to go and what to do.
The two greatest barriers are related to a
lack of information and understanding:
• I don’t know where to go - 283
respondents (29%)
• I’m not sure what I’m allowed to do there
- 170 respondents (17%)
In the survey, women were 3 times more
likely to provide the above responses than
men. Women were also more likely to
report “not feeling safe” or “not having to
someone to go with” as barriers to access.
Sheffield Lakeland is a varied landscape and
in order to tailor interventions, gateways to
increasing access to heritage in the Sheffield
Lakeland landscape have been divided into
5 categories which will help structure how
we support access to the landscape:
A - Highly used recreational hubs
Highly used recreational hubs providing
access to the wider landscape which require
joined up management strategies between
multiple interest groups to mitigate the
impacts of conflicting uses.
This category covers:
- Redmires / Wyming Brook
- Damflask / Bradfield
- Langsett
B - Locally important gateways
These locations are well used and loved by
regular users, but often with unrecognised
biodiversity or heritage importance and
not widely known outside the immediate
community.
This category covers:
- Wadsley and Loxley Common
- Glen Howe Park
- Oxley Park /New Hall Wood
These locations are nearer to residential
areas than the gateway hubs and are
popular local dog walking and family
recreation sites. Although smaller that
the larger recreational hubs, they have
strong local stories, significant wildlife and
attractive landscapes and offer a “taste
of Sheffield Lakeland”. These locations
have some limited car parking, but more
importantly provide direct access out into
the Sheffield Lakeland landscape from
built up areas via the public rights of way
network.
C - Public transport gateways
The ORRG research confirmed that
car parking at peak times in popular
destinations in the Sheffield Lakeland is
a significant problem. Farmers reported
difficulties accessing their field gates, due
to inconsiderate car parking and vulnerable
road users such as horse riders and cyclists
reported that road safety concerns were a
significant barrier to the accessibility and
connectivity of the area.
SLLP LCAP Projects
465

It is important therefore to make the most
of the existing public transport gateways,
namely:
- Malin Bridge Tram Stop and Park and
Ride
- Middlewood Tram Stop and Park and Ride
- Bus turnaround, Low Bradfield
D - Information gateways
The ORRG research identified that a lack of
information about where to go and what
activities were permitted remains one of
the most significant barriers to access to the
Sheffield Lakeland landscape, particularly
amongst less frequent countryside users.
The research indicates a strong tendency to
stick to tried and tested routes.
The project will make use of a wide range of
information gateways such as libraries, cafes
and pubs e.g. Bank View Café at Langsett
(aka the Spotty Café) and online resources
such as the Bradfield Walkers are Welcome
website and walks apps.
E - Support gateways
There are a number of groups already
working to support access in the area, going
beyond provision of information to providing
support and encouragement. These range
from the Stocksbridge and Bradfield
Walkers are Welcome groups, which develop
and promote new routes and lead walks
in the 5-10 mile bracket, to groups such
as Walking for Health, Stannington which
supports people taking up walking for the
first time and Pedal Ready which teaches
cycling skills to adult novices.
Activities:
All staff costs are held in project 1, The Core
1. Gateways to information
“… good push chair friendly routes and
knowing where to go, so we don’t get stuck
part way…”
1a) Signage audit and new orientation at
gateway sites
At some locations, signage has proliferated,
resulting in a confusing array of advice,
regulation, orientation and interpretation as
in the photograph above. The result is nobody
reads anything.
A signage audit will be undertaken at
gateway sites and new orientation and
waymarking provided in the form of new
‘gateway signs’ for the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership in a common
style. These will be image / icon led with
a simple map illustration and using Easy
Read standard text, supported by on-site
waymarking to identify the:
• The landscape area and “where you are
now”.
• The location of other gateway sites.
• A simple (e.g. Wheely Easy Walk) that can
be followed to get a taste of this part of
the landscape, particularly to take in a key
point of interest.
• Where applicable a circular or linear route
linking to another gateway or specific
cultural walk.
• Contact details for the SLLP website and
recognition of HLF support.
Outputs:
9 new Sheffield Lakeland orientation panels
and supporting waymarking £12000 inc
VAT
Outcomes:
- Clearer information from which it is easier
to work out the important information
from the nice to know interpretation.
- Improved visitor experience whilst
protecting important heritage features.
466 SLLP LCAP Projects

1b) Digital Gateways - providing more
joined up access to information online and
downloadable resources
The SLLP will develop its own website
during delivery, which will have three key
functions:
1. Back room, for partners to submit claims
and for the Lead Partner to manage
reporting and monitoring.
2. A gallery of Landscape and the projects
we are undertaking
3. A very simple ‘information’ portal allowing
as many users to access information
about how to access the heritage of the
Sheffield Lakeland.
Sections 2 and 3 will be as visual as possible
and section 3 will be very simple, allowing
easy downloads to mobile phones and
information provided in Easy Reader format.
Within the website, each gateway location
will have a dedicated web page on the SLLP
website with information in a common
format to the on-site orientation panels. The
website is an opportunity to create a one
stop shop for essential information about
access to the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape,
with links to the Walkers are Welcome sites,
Peak District National Park, Yorkshire Water
and the Outdoor City amongst others.
In recognition of the huge amount of
information that is already available across
many websites, we will develop a Sheffield
Lakeland ‘key’ to routes and collate
opportunities into a library of downloadable
walks, using a simple pictorial key to routes
covering factors such as:
1. Length/time
2. Slope/ground conditions
3. Ease of navigation
4. Facilities
Season and climatic considerations
(The costs of developing the website
(£12,640 inc VAT) are held in the Digital
Landscape, and so are not repeated in this
proforma or accompanying spreadsheet).
SLLP Website Outputs:
- At least 6 “taste of Sheffield Lakeland”
gateway locations with a specific page
- At least 1 page providing information on
public transport
- At least 1 page providing information on
information gateways such as cafes, pubs
and libraries
- A page dedicated to the country code
and specific Sheffield Lakeland examples
of this in practice
- A section of the website dedicated to an
online library of downloadable walks and
rides including at least 50 downloadable
walks graded by length / difficulty collated
into an online library.
- Further information, contacts for support
groups – signposting to other sources of
information or support.
Outcomes
- People reporting an increase in
confidence about where to go and what
to do in the Landscape after using the
website and apps.
Secondly, this component will target
support to update / modernise information
provided by other access support groups to
improve the accessibility of downloadable
routes to the smart phone generation.
Cost £5000 inc VAT
Outputs
- At least 2 websites enabled to become
more mobile friendly.
SLLP LCAP Projects
467

Outcomes
- Increased confidence to try new routes
amongst people downloading routes.
1c New Walking and Ride Routes
New routes have already been planned in
the Heritage Highways, (6 circular rides),
and Restoring the Lattice, (1 walling themed
walk), and The Woodland Heart (Broadleaf),
(1 running route).
In addition to the above, this project will
work with the following 3 groups, which
between them cover the whole of the SLLP
area:
- Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome
- Bradfield Walkers are Welcome
- Ringinglow Walks Group
These groups will support the SLLP to
develop 2 sets of new Sheffield Lakeland
routes, which make links between public
transport and gateway destinations and
showcase different aspects of the area’s
heritage. The detail of the routes will
be determined by the above groups in
partnership with other user groups, and will
be in two formats:
Routes 1-4 - Your First Visit
It is relatively difficult to find information
about the simple routes, the readily
accessible places, the comfortable places
to start to learn about the landscape until
you get there. While it is sometimes possible
to find straight forward way-marked, easy
access routes marked on-site, it is less easy
to find out in advance what you are likely to
encounter.
Inspired by Bradfield Walkers are Welcome
“Wheely Easy Walks”, this component will
create four new family/easy access walks
starting at easy to find locations with
straight forward routes.
These will include:
- Circular walks around 2 reservoirs
- A walk from Bradfield, and
- A walk from Malin Bridge up the Rivelin
Valley.
The exact detail of the walk routes will
come from working with the walking
group partners and participants on the
outreach workshops, who will act as subject
matter experts. Helpful information will
be provided such as practice advice about
sensible, (but not excessive), outdoor
clothing and details about the facilities that
are available. These walks will be less than
2 hours long, at a steady pace and will start
from a car park or be accessible by public
transport.
Hyperlapse photography will be used to
create an easy to follow video guide to each
of these routes.
Routes 5-10 - Easy explores, bring a map and
a snack
A range of six visits allowing inexperienced
visitors to the countryside to experience
and better understand some of the heritage
projects being delivered by SLLP. The 6th
walk listed has already been drafted as
“Water, Walls and Walks and is budgeted
separately under the Restoring the Lattice
project.
Routes will be accessible by public transport
and incorporate local cafes, pubs or other
features of interest.
The task of putting this range of routes
together will be with the named project, but
they will be supported by a walks experts
from the above groups. The visits are:
1. Wyming Brook: Enhancing Wildlife Trust
Nature Reserves
2. Wadsley and Loxley Common: Supporting
Local Groups
468 SLLP LCAP Projects

3. Bowcroft Cemetery: Supporting Local
Groups
4. Oxley Park /New Hall Wood: The
Woodland Heart
5. The Great Sheffield Flood: Telling the
Stories of the Landscape
6. Walls, Water and Walks: Restoring the
Lattice
Route guides will be provided in print
format complying to Easy Reader standard
and will be distributed in paper form via
information gateways. Routes will also
produced in a downloadable format online.
Once completed each route will be added
to the calendar of guided walks organised
by the above groups.
Cost of design and print of 10 new routes
£13000 inc VAT
Outputs
- 10 new walking routes in digital and print
format
- 4 routes available on Youtube and via SLLP
website as hyperlapse videos
- Increased opportunities to plan recreational
visits to the SLLP using public transport
- Walking groups and participants on
workshops working together to design the
routes.
Outcomes
- Closer collaboration between different
recreational user groups in the SLLP
- Increased appreciation of the needs of
different user groups
- Increased probability that participants on
outreach workshops will join one of the
existing support groups.
1d) New Fixed Interpretation for Sheffield
Lakeland
The SLLP approach to fixed interpretation
is light touch and has made a conscious
decision to focus away from the installation
of interpretation panels. This stems from:
- A desire not to place intrusive
interpretation material into the landscape.
- The knowledge that regular visitors
quickly become blind to fixed
interpretation.
- The need to avoid creating a long term
maintenance burden for SLLP partners
New fixed interpretation planned under
other programme strands:
The Woodland Heart (Broadleaf) project will
provide new interpretation panels at:
- The Grade II listed Pack Horse Bridge,
Glen Howe Park in Wharncliffside
- New Hall Wood / Oxley Park in
Stocksbridge
The Locally Important Sites strand will
provide new interpretation for:
- Canyards Hill geological SSSI
The Supporting Local Groups strand will
provide new interpretation for:
- Rivelin Valley
The Hidden Heritage strand will provide
new interpretation for community
archaeology projects with locations
identified during delivery.
In addition, this project will install 3 further
interpretation panels to support the new
walking routes being developed in 1c above.
- Redmires Heritage, 1 panel in Redmires
car park covering the WW1 trenches, the
Redmires Conduit and the wildlife of the
area.
- Sheffield Flood – 1 panel on the
footpath between the Bradfield Parish
Council boundary and Malin Bridge to
SLLP LCAP Projects
469

commemorate the 200 people who were
killed at Malin Bridge by the failure of the
Dale Dike Dam in 1864.
- The Grade II* listed Little Matlock mill and
mill wheel complex – 1 panel to cover the
story of the water wheels and mills of the
Loxley Valley.
Outputs and Outcomes
- 3 New interpretation panels
- Improved understanding of key stories of
the landscape and engagement with local
sense of place.
Costs: £4500 inc VAT
2. Gateways to shared understanding –
Gateway Forums
Category A gateway locations are
established destinations and as such offer
significant potential to welcome new visitors
to the landscape. They may already include
car parking, toilets or other visitor facilities
such as cafes or “easy going routes” and
attract a range of interest groups including
cycling, bird watching, horse riding as well
as walking. However, at busy times these
locations also experience the negative
impacts of recreational pressure and would
benefit from improved co-ordination and
dialogue between land managers and
interest groups in order to agree common
values and to create a forum for discussion
of competing or potentially incompatible
management objectives.
The SLLP Programme Manager will establish
a regular communication exchange with
land managers and interest groups to
esablish common values management
approaches and to further the legacy vision
for these complex, sensitive locations that
respect the vision for the landscape. This
will take the forum of Gateway Forums.
Outputs
Year 1: Forums established for each of the
category A gateway locations and 3 forum
meetings attended by at least 10 people
each. (1 for each hub)
Year 2: At least 6 (2 for each hub) meetings
attended by a least 10 people each.
Year 3: At least 6 meetings attended by at
least 10 people each
Year 4: At least 3 meetings attended by at
least 10 people each.
Forum meetings will adopt the “pie and pea
supper” format which has proved successful
in other landscape partnerships e.g. DVLP
and South West Peak.
Outcomes
- Stakeholders and interest groups increase
understanding of each other’s concerns
and priorities.
- Pragmatic, solutions focussed culture is
supported
- Gateway legacy management planning
better reflects the needs of all interest
groups and stakeholders.
Total costs £3,500 inc VAT
3. Gateways to Confidence
3a) Gateway to inspiration - A photographic
census of the heritage of Sheffield Lakeland
– bringing the outdoors indoors.
The SLLP will commission a photographic
census of the heritage of the area to support
the key interpretive theme - A Disappearing
Landscape.
The images will provide a snapshot of
the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape in 2019
including the farmscape, the people,
ways of life, industrial heritage, wildlife,
recreational and cultural activities.
470 SLLP LCAP Projects

This photographic census will be conducted
over a 12 month period in order to capture
the seasonality of life in Sheffield Lakeland.
The images will provide a permanent record
of the landscape and be used to develop
a stand-alone exhibition supporting the
Disappearing Landscape theme of Telling
the Stories of the Landscape strand. The
census will also complement the Sheffield
Lakeland Song Cycle which will be recorded
by the ReSound project.
As well as a stand-alone exhibition, the
images will be used as a tool for engaging
with community groups which do not
or are not able to access the landscape –
linking to the Connecting Steps, Landscape
Perspectives and Landscape Connections
projects.
Costs: £3000 inc VAT
Outputs:
- “Sheffield Lakeland in 100 photographs”
exhibition
- Archive of images which can be used to
monitor changes in the Landscape.
Outcomes
- Visual engagement with the stories of the
landscape, deepening connectivity, sense
of place.
3b) Gateways to Confidence - Outreach
Workshops
The research undertaken by ORRG identified
several factors relating to increasing
confidence in people’s abilities to visit the
local countryside that, if addressed, could
have a positive impact on participation rates.
In particular, there remains a lack of
awareness and lack of confidence amongst
less frequent users and non-users about
how to plan a visit, what to see, facilities that
are available, what activities are permitted –
even at well-established gateway locations
such as Langsett Reservoir.
This lack of awareness of the opportunities
in the landscape, in combination with a lack
of confidence to take the first step, acts as a
significant barrier to access. It was notable
that this phenomenon was shown in the
survey results to inhibit access for 3 times as
many female survey respondents as male,
with the result that women were more
likely to be non-users or to stick to tried and
tested “safe” locations.
A further survey question also found that 178
people (17% of the survey) were interested
in events / sessions relating to map reading
and improving their navigational skills.
The community outreach component of the
Gateways to Confidence project will therefore
focus on boosting the confidence of underrepresented
groups to access to the natural
and built heritage of the SLLP area.
Workshops will be a combination of:
- “Closed events” working with beneficiaries
from other community engagement
strands Connecting Steps and Landscape
Perceptions, and
- Women only open events, recruited from
the general population.
The programme of workshops will include:
- Introduction to the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape – what’s out there, where am
I allowed to go (understanding public
rights of way, open access).
- Sources of easy, recommended walks and
finding people to walk with.
- The Country Code and how it applies to
Sheffield Lakeland, dogs, livestock and
wildlife, hygiene and bio-security issues,
wildflowers, invasive species.
- Navigation skills, understanding an OS
map, pros and cons of paper vs digital
mapping, finding out about access
restrictions, how to report a problem.
SLLP LCAP Projects
471

- How to plan a journey by public transport,
whether there are toilet or café facilities,
appropriate footwear clothing.
- Feeling safe, preparation, plan B,
discovering the uplands, what to do if…
- Signposting to further information
– including learning to road cycle /
mountain bike/ horse ride / joining a
running group.
- Exploring the detail of barriers to access
(lack of knowledge is a “headline” answer
and it is likely that more complex socioeconomic
factors lie underneath this).
The groups will be encouraged to plan
and lead walks with increasing levels of
challenge. “Experts” will be introduced
to the group, including walk guides from
local walking support groups, countryside
rangers, Mountain Rescue, Wildlife Trust
nature reserve managers.
Total cost £10,000 inc VAT
Outputs:
- At least 2 cohorts of groups, to include
beneficiaries from invitation only closed
sessions and women only open sessions.
- 6 workshops per cohort and 6 walk events
(24 activities in total).
- At least 20 people signposted onto other
support groups / activities
- Knowledge shared about address barriers
to access with outdoor activity interest
groups in the City.
- Increased knowledge about proenvironmental
behaviours amongst
participants .
Outcomes
- 25% of participants will join one of the
existing walking or other outdoor activity
groups following the end of the course
and will still be members in 12 months
time.
- Improved knowledge about the exact
nature of barriers to access (drilling
deeper than the ORRG survey).
- Ambassadors for pro-environmental
behaviours – 25% of the participants share
their learning with family and friends.
Total cost of all activities - £51,000 including
VAT
Supporting documents
Access and Gateways to the Landscape
Appraisal (Outdoor Recreation Research
Group)
Community Engagement, Strategic Context
for Sheffield Lakelands (Waymark)
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
SRWT, YW and SCC will be key organisations
in agreeing a strategic approach to gateway
management as they are majority owner/
managers of these shared assets.
SRWT will be involved in the Wyming Brook
route.
Bradfield Parish Council and the Steel Valley
Project and Sheffield City Council in the
Bowcroft cemetery and Glen Howe and
New Hall Wood routes. Stocksbridge Leisure
Centre will be involved in interpretation at
Oxley Park.
The British Horse Society and South
Yorkshire Archaeology Service will be
involved in the Historic Route.
- 75% will show increased knowledge and
confidence after the workshops
472 SLLP LCAP Projects

Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
We intend to engage expert support from
Bradfield and Stockbridge Walkers are
Welcome, and the Ringinglow Walking
Group, who have all already supplied
volunteer and professional support to our
project during the development phase.
Wadsley and Loxley Commoners, Rivelin
Valley Conservation Group (Supporting Local
Groups), Loxley Valley Preservation Society
and Worrall Environmental Association will
be involved in designing routes.
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
This project is our main, community
information project, designed to help as
many people as possible better enjoy our
landscape.
Strategic fit
The ORRG evaluation of the strategic policies
and plans covering the SLLP area emphasises
how well the SLLP delivery outcomes
conform to the main local authorities’
(Sheffield City Council and the Peak District
National Park Authority) own aspirations,
alongside other significant partners, such as
Yorkshire Water. The Sheffield City Council
Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007-17
(SCC ROWIP) is particularly significant, as
meeting some of the aspirations contained
in this plan will unlock people’s access to the
cultural and natural heritage of the SLLP area,
on foot, horseback and by bicycle, through
the provision of vital infrastructure. The
Outdoor City Economic Strategy provides
vital evidence underpinning the importance
of recreation and tourism development
for economic regeneration in Sheffield. In
addition, there are other strategies, such as
the Sheffield Waterways Strategy and the
South Yorkshire Green Infrastructure Plan,
which emphasise the importance of the
river valleys to Sheffield in providing access
and connections for both people and nature.
Policies in the Peak District National Park
Authority’s current Management Plan and
Yorkshire Water’s 25 Year Blueprint Plan
demonstrate that these major partners in the
SLLP are also supportive of enhancements
to access to cultural and natural heritage for
both local residents and visitors to the area.
(ORRG)
Reaching a wider more diverse audience
is a recurring theme in most of the reports
reviewed by Waymark (see report) and should
also be a priority for the SLLP. Clearly much
work is already taking place to reach out
to variety of audiences, including minority
groups, limited mobility, health inequalities,
new arrivals, youth and the elderly. (Waymark)
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife:
Better joined up access to information
and better route connectivity with public
transport
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors: Stories interpreted through new
routes and interpretation panels and
landscape recorded through Photographic
Census.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy: This project links
existing SLLP projects together with a
range of access and leisure strategies from
our partners. It is designed expressly to
involve a wider section of the community
and particularly groups shown to be
experiencing barriers to countryside
access in the ORRG survey.
The decision to create simple information
in Easy Reader standard will help reach a
wider community.
SLLP LCAP Projects
473

HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
Having a joint ‘strategic’ plan for our gateway
sites will allow partners to work together
and create efficiencies via gateway forums.
This will help us ensure heritage is better
managed and remains in better condition.
Our gateways in particular will be identified
and recognised.
Landscape Photographic Census will provide
a snapshot of the landscape in 2019 (Brexit
year 0).
Outputs for people
1,000 people will download route information
which will help them gain skills and
confidence around visiting the countryside.
20 people will receive uncertified training in
outdoor access skills.
The SLLP gateway web pages, new on-site
interpretation, improved orientation and
signage, Photographic Census exhibition
and Gateways to Confidence workshops
provide the opportunity for 5000+ people
to learn more about the heritage of the
Sheffield Lakelands. This will be measured by
downloads and attendances with a multiplier
for the spread of learning by word of mouth.
At least 7 people will have volunteered
their time to help deliver these projects.
In particular, the chairs of Bradfield and
Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome groups
and the walks leader for the Ringinglow
Walking Group.
Outcomes for communities
Gateways to Confidence workshop will
address pro-social and pro-environmental
behaviours such as keeping dogs on a lead.
This will reduce current negative impacts on
our important sites.
This project is designed to engage a wider
range of communities in visiting and
learning about our heritage. The project will
improve access to information about the
heritage of the landscape for all groups, but
will also focus outreach sessions for underrepresented
groups as identified by the
ORRG survey.
Signage audit will help reduce signage
clutter. New orientation and interpretation
panels will create a sense of a more cared
for environment.
Consents required
From landowners for installation of
orientation and interpretation panels and
new way marking, this has been given
verbally.
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
The website will illustrate our entire project.
In addition the following are direct ‘funded’
links with projects.
1. Wyming Brook: Enhancing Wildlife Trust
Nature Reserves
2. Wadsley and Loxley Common: Supporting
Local Groups
3. Bowcroft Cemetery: Supporting Local
Groups
4. Oxley Park / New Hall Wood: Woodland
Heart
5. Historic Route: Heritage Highways /
Hidden History
6. Walls, Water, Walks: Restoring the Lattice
7. Flood! / Disappearing Landscape Telling
the Stories of the Landscape
In addition, there are links to Connecting
Steps, Landscape Connections and Art in
the Landscape.
474 SLLP LCAP Projects

Biosecurity / Confidentiality
We will create a very simple version of the
‘countryside code’ in Easy Reader compliant
language using symbols and icons wherever
possible.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Operational
The website will be retained for a minimum
of 10 years post-project end.
Maintenance of new interpretation and
orientation panels will be adopted by the
relevant landowners.
Risks
Low risk, directly delivered with established
and supportive partners, building
on partnerships established during
development phase.
Changes in core team staffing, resulting
in delays whilst new relationships are
established with partner organisations.
Practical Projects, Volunteer Coordinator
and Traineeships
SLLP LCAP Projects
475

Gateways
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Management Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Project Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Materials 5200.00
Contractors 2000.00 2800.00
300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00 100.00 60.00
Professional fees 2000.00 800.00 4800.00 5600.00 4000.00 4000.00
Non recoverable VAT 150.00 280.00 1200.00 1380.00 1880.00 700.00 80.00 80.00 1080.00 80.00 30.00
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer/trainne travel 50.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.00 20.00
Volunteer PPE 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00
Volunteer training 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 600.00 200.00
Volunteer support budget 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 30.00
Non recoverable VAT 31.00 31.00 31.00 331.00 331.00 281.00 331.00 181.00 31.00 31.00 31.00 31.00 28.00
Funding area
Publicity and promotion 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 500.00 200.00 100.00 40.00 100.00 100.00
Non recoverable VAT 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 190.00 50.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 50.00
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
51000.00
476 SLLP LCAP Projects

A dedicated volunteer team from a previous HLF Landscape Partnership
Volunteers are at the heart of what we
do, but they are not resource free they
do require support and resources to be
effective. They also offer a great opportunity
for trainees to develop skills and learn to be
part of and then lead teams.
Lead partner
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
through the Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust
150 word summary
Throughout the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership volunteers will
be undertaking a wide range of projects;
developing, planning, implementing and
reporting. Volunteers of all types will need
to be recruited and those already working in
the area will need support in both expertise
and logistics.
This is a capacity building project, the
Project and Volunteer Officer will play a vital
role in:
• Helping all projects requiring and
involving volunteers,
• Overall coordination of the ‘Supporting
Local Groups’ project,
• Working with woodland partners to
develop woodlands and woodland
volunteering,
• Delivering the Restoring the Lattice
Project,
• Coordinating and supporting the SLLP
training Posts.
Full project description
The project will be delivered by the Project
and Volunteer Officer. The post itself will be
SLLP LCAP Projects
477

managed by the SLLP Programme Manager
with salary, on-costs and full cost recovery
covered under the Core Project brief. This
Brief outlines the role and resources that
officer has at their disposal.
Separate briefs include:
• Restoring the lattice
• Enhancing nature reserves, supporting
local groups
The resources of the project
The Project and Volunteer Officer will
Line Manage the SLLP Trainees and build
their competence to develop and deliver
practical projects in their own right.
Between them, and with the support of
others they will:
1. Coordinate the dry stone walling project
‘Restoring the Lattice’, directly delivering
the SRWT trainee element
2. Help four community groups deliver
twelve 3rd party nature conservation or
archaeology projects of which four are
planned and delivered predominantly by
a trainee.
3. Work with the Woodland Managers of the
partnership to help coordinate woodland
volunteering with a view to developing a
‘sustainable’ community based woodland
management project.
Supporting other projects
The resources and budgets of this project
will be available to all partners and projects.
Both the skills of the Project and Volunteer
Officer at a practical level but also the
‘recruitment of volunteers’ opportunity that
arises from having a dedicated officer. This
is very important for organisations who
currently have a stratified membership and
are looking to boost their activity with new
blood.
The Trainees (Job Description Attached)
There are academic courses and a wide
selection of students leave university with
good degrees and would like to work
in conservation management with the
NGO sector. There are routes into the
sector but the most junior paid posts
with organisations such as: Wildlife Trust,
RSPB and National Trust require practical
experience.
This has traditionally been gained through
post-graduation volunteering opportunities
which are predominantly taken up by
white middleclass graduates. This is only
exacerbated by the level of debt most
graduates now leave university with.
There is no need to undertake a survey to
determine the socio-economic structure of
the environmental NGO sector. The Heritage
Lottery fund has been instrumental in
helping redress this balance and this project
offers a similar opportunity. We intend to
target our traineeships to graduates from
the Sheffield region who come from debt
adverse communities, which includes
muslim and afro-Caribbean and white
working class (The ethnicity attainment gap,
SHU, 2016.). We will ask our two universities
to help us select a trainee each year.
Trainees will gain experience, this is not
about training courses and certificates it
is about real experience recorded on the
Wildlife Trusts Competence recording forms,
the building of a suitable CV. Each trainee
will work with the Wildlife Trust for a year
as a member of junior staff undertaking
routine tasks throughout the SLLP projects,
in addition they will:
• Learn and gain certification in dry stone
walling, a skill gap recognised in the
sector.
• Work with both a youth project and the
Adult engagement project to plan and
facilitate an activity to engage hard to
reach people.
478 SLLP LCAP Projects

• Plan and deliver an event for the public
on a nature reserve.
• Spend up to a month with one of the
other partners learning about their work
inside and beyond SLLP
• Work with a community group to design,
plan, budget and deliver a stand-along
project.
In addition to ‘land management’ and
‘community engagement’ trainees
will also spend time with the SRWT
departments:
• SLLP administration, apply for a small
grant, manage a project budget
spreadsheet.
• SRWT Membership, as part of the
membership legacy project.
• SLLP Communication and Engagement
Officer creating ‘copy’ for information
sheets and researching / collating at least
one ‘local story’
Shared resources
While the Project and Volunteer Officer,
together with the trainees will help
‘coordinate’ the Supporting Local Groups
project, therefore having access to those
resources, the P&V Officer will also manage
and be responsible for a volunteer support
budget and for the maintenance and use of
some shared equipment.
The equipment purchased for this project
includes:
• Chipper and log splitter and trailer
• A selection of small hand and power tools
• A budget for PPE and associated safety
equipment.
Supporting documents
1. Trainee Job Description
2. The ethnicity attainment gap SHU 2016
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• SRWT will host the project. Managed
under the SLLP Programme Manager.
The services of the project will be open to all
partners and it is expected that the following
will make use of it:
• Sheffield City Council
• South Yorkshire Archaeological Services
• British Horse Society
• Steel Valley Project
• Yorkshire Water
• SRWT and Wildscapes
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
We have identified Wadsley and Loxley
Commoners, St Nicholas Church, the
Rivelin Conservation Society and the South
Yorkshire Bat Group through the ‘Supporting
Local Groups’ Project.
We will aim to engage additional groups
throughout the delivery phase.
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
This project will contribute to the ‘material
upkeep of our important landscape and
habitats and make a real contribution to
health and wellbeing by supporting volunteers.
It will also help create more engaged and
skilled group of people in the community to
continue to contribute to our vision.
Strategic fit
Sheffield City Council Green Spaces Strategy:
PP C2 Develop volunteering as a significant
element of the management, development
and maintenance of green and open spaces.
- developing the necessary resources to
support a volunteering network by 2018
SLLP LCAP Projects
479

QM S2 Develop Sheffield as a centre
of excellence for environmental and
horticultural skills; for community
volunteering and engagement; and for local
and natural heritage conservation.
Big Lottery Fund: Academic studies and
our evaluations have demonstrated that
volunteering can have a positive effect on
a range of aspects of individual well-being,
including: happiness, life satisfaction, selfesteem,
sense of control over life, improved
physical health and alleviating depression.
As such, there is the potential for the Big
Society to promote higher levels of wellbeing
amongst individuals.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
1. A more connected and resilient landscape:
This project will connect groups and sites,
we will work to improve them and to help
local groups understand better what they
need to continue doing to maintain their
heritage.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife:
Resources in the way of people, funds and
knowledge to support others achieve this.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors: Resources in the way of people,
funds and knowledge to support others
achieve this.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after
it – a landscape for all to learn about,
value, experience and enjoy: This is an
engagement project where, across other
projects, we will help volunteers both
better understand their environment but
also feel a valued part of it.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
With particular emphasis on ‘helping local
groups’ this project will result in 3 local
groups: Rivelin Conservation Group, W&L
Commoners and St Nicholas Archivist and
volunteers being better able to manage
their sites.
Woodland management across the
partnership will benefit from ‘community’
based input.
10 wildlife sites; nature reserves, public
access woodland, Public Right of Ways etc.
will be in better condition as a result of this
project.
As well as the three groups listed above, this
project will support the South Yorkshire Bat
project in recording and understanding how
bat populations are impacted by our work.
Outputs for people
4 Adult traineeships resulting in
comprehensive ‘competency’ records. 2
Adults/trainees gain FT employment in
the sector as a result or with contributing
support of taking part in this project.
4 Community groups will be supported
by SLLP Volunteer or volunteer resource,
through the supporting local groups project.
Outcomes for communities
50 Adults contribute to the landscape
in a meaningful manner with 210 Adult
contributory volunteer days in total
7 organisations will have increased
volunteer capacity through experience and
confidence and a corresponding increase in
volunteers.
Consents required
None
480 SLLP LCAP Projects

Budget headlines
Percentage
HLF Funds required
£137,660
93%
Partnership / match funding £ secured
%
Volunteer contribution
210 days of adult volunteering at £50 per
day. Not counted by any other projects
volunteer element
Photographs
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
The volunteer coordinator and trainees will
work across a range of SLLP projects, in
particular:
1. “Supporting local groups” with the support
of the coordinator one trainee per year will
work with St Nicholas’ church to deliver a
specific project.
2. “Restoring the lattice” will involve each
trainee in learning how to dry stone wall
and they will gain experience of leading a
‘work party’.
As a group, the volunteer coordinator,
trainees and volunteers will work with a
wide range of projects, including access
work on nature reserves and habitat creation
and management projects throughout the
landscape partnership.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
Certificated and uncertificated evidence of experience
is vital for young people hoping to start a career in
the environmental sector. Not everyone can afford to
volunteer in order to build this evidence.
40. Priority species recovery
Volunteers will be engaged on projects to
support priority species.
41. Telling local stories
Trainees will work with the SLLP
Communications officer to help tell local stories.
42. Digital landscape (i.e. using technology)
43. Monitoring and evaluation
The volunteer teams and trainees will be
available to help the M&E Consultants
and projects in gaining data for the M&E
programme.
Many skills required by the sector are gained from
experience rather than classroom learning
44. Community engagement
Each trainee will deliver at least one
community engagement project task part of
their ‘supporting local groups’ work.
SLLP LCAP Projects
481

45. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially other
supporters.
Trainees will be required to develop
at least one piece of interpretation or
communication which will include HLF
acknowledgement as a requirement.
For us it will be important to ensure our
trainees understand and maximise these
opportunities.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
The Practical Projects and Volunteer
coordinator, together with the trainees and
volunteers working with the Wildlife Trust
will conform to the SRWT policies. They
will also conform to systems of the other
organisations thy work with.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
None required
Operational
As with any ‘job’ the engagement of the
right person is vital. Should a trainee fail to
complete their period of employment we
will work with HLF to agree either a shortperiod
traineeship to fill the gap or look to
extend the next one-year post to fill the gap.
Traineeship
Insufficient volunteer opportunities
There is a wide range of existing projects
described in the SLLP to facilitate a great
deal of volunteering, in addition the Wildlife
Trust is suitably placed to offer more,
suitable, opportunities in the area should
none of the SLLP funded projects need
volunteers at any time.
Climate Change
This is not a project which lends itself
specifically to climate change mitigation
or adaptation. However, much of the work
carried out by the coordinator, trainees and
volunteers will contribute to the climate
change action of other projects.
This project only has access to revenue
support funds.
Strategic
We aim to create four people trained and
ready to be valuable contributors to the
environmental sector. We also aim to
have helped and enthused others who will
continue the good work.
Risks
Insufficient volunteers
Sheffield is a dynamic and changing city so
this should be a low risk. If the project fails
to attract sufficient volunteers (50 adults)
over the period of the project we will work
with the HLF to manage change.
Failure to engage trainees or trainees fail
and leave
482 SLLP LCAP Projects

Countryside Volunteers, Practical Projects
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Staff Salary 4,562.00 4,562.00 4,562.00 4,562.00 4,562.00 4,562.00 4,562.00 4,562.00 4,562.00 4,563.00 4,563.00 4,563.00 4,563.00 4,563.00 4,563.00 4,563.00
Non recoverable VAT 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00
Funding area
Management Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Project Overheads
Travel for staff 706.25 706.25 706.25 706.25 706.25 706.25 706.25 706.25 706.25 706.25 706.25 706.25 706.25 706.25 706.25 706.25
Training budget 1,000.00 3,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
PPE 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00 78.00
Non recoverable VAT 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Site equipment 17,300.00
Site Officer PPE 500.00
Tools 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 100.00
Non recoverable VAT 100.00 3,460.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 20.00
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer/trainne travel 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00
Volunteer PPE 375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00
Volunteer training 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
Volunteer support budget 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50 87.50
Non recoverable VAT 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50 17.50
Funding area
Publicity and promotion 500.00 500.00 500.00 500.00
Non recoverable VAT 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
137,627.00
SLLP LCAP Projects
483

Landscape Connections
Children from a Sheffield primary school using woodland
as a natural outdoor classroom. Photo credit: Dave
Shapiro
Lead partner
Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust
150 word summary
We will offer a programme of outdoor
learning activities for partner schools
from both rural and urban communities –
using the landscape as a natural outdoor
classroom to deliver a combination of
natural heritage and farm visit learning
activities.
Because this landscape is so close to the
city, there is great potential to engage,
excite and inspire children and young
people to connect with the local heritage
around them.
We will enable urban children to experience
a landscape which, although on their
doorstep, is often left unexplored. We will
empower local children to learn more about
the landscape they live in but may not fully
understand.
Full project description
Engaging children and young people in
their local heritage will be a key strand
of this project. There are two different
audiences to consider:
1. Children and young people living in the
landscape area itself – a rural location,
perhaps isolated in some areas but
with good access to nature and the
countryside on their doorstep.
2. Children and young people living in the
city – dense, urban, multicultural areas,
often with limited access to nature and
the countryside in their everyday lives.
We will work with primary and secondary
schools allowing them to visit, experience
and learn about this landscape and its
natural and cultural heritage.
British children are increasingly unaware of
where their food comes from. Research by
the British Nutrition Foundation found that,
out of the 5,000 children surveyed, almost
one fifth of 5 - 7 year olds said that fish
fingers were made of chicken. The survey
also showed that one in ten 11 - 14 year olds
did not know that carrots and potatoes
grow underground. This has negative
implications not only on their health as they
fail to understand basic nutritional needs
and how to source them correctly but also
on the part they play as consumers in the
food chain. This impacts negatively on the
farming and food industries as convenience
food and the need to provide it cheaply
increases. This in turn has a negative impact
on environmental sustainability.
484 SLLP LCAP Projects

Working with a local dairy farm will enable
children to understand where food comes
from and to examine the pressures facing
the UK farming industry and the effects
these have on the rural landscape.
A programme of outdoor learning activities
including farm visits at Cliff House Farm
will be offered to a broad range of schools
including schools with a high number of
children and young people from underrepresented
communities accessing the
countryside e.g. pupils entitled to free
school meals, pupils with special needs or
pupils from particular ethnic minorities.
The programme will be developed and
refined in consultation with a network
of Sheffield teachers and head teachers,
including at least one primary from within
the area, one from an urban area and
one secondary. Topics expected to be
developed for delivery are ‘where food
comes from’, ‘how food is produced’, ‘the
farmed landscape’, ‘plant science in farming’
and ‘sustainability’. Developing teacher
support will also be key to ensuring a
visit forms part of a wider programme of
lessons that may also entail school grounds
activities if appropriate.
Supporting documents
1. https://www.nutrition.org.uk/press-office/
pressreleases/1059-bnfhew2017.html
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/
system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/501709/defra-strategy-160219.pdf
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• We will work with the Practical Projects,
Volunteering and Traineeship project to
help improve they sites we use.
• The working with water project will be
creating and improving habitats on the
farm, we will be able to make use of
these.
• The Stepping Out project will also visit this
location and we will hope to undertake
some joint activities
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
Our Cow Molly. http://www.ourcowmolly.
co.uk/ Local dairy farm who will be the
venue for the farm visits and some of the
outdoor learning sessions for the project.
SRWT have identified four schools who want
to be a part of the project:
Bradfield Dungworth Primary School,
Dungworth Green, Sheffield S6 6HE is a
school within the project area with a ‘Good’
Ofsted rating
Manor Lodge Primary School, Manor Ln,
Sheffield S2 1UF is an inner city school
with a high percentage of pupil premium
children and a ‘Requires Improvement’
Ofsted rating.
Grenoside Primary School, 80 Main St,
Sheffield S35 8PQ is a primary school on
the outskirts of the city with a ‘Good’ Ofsted
rating.
Yewlands Academy, Creswick Ln, Sheffield
S35 8NN is a secondary school on the
outskirts of the city with an ‘Inadequate’
Ofsted rating.
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
The project will help to make people value,
enjoy, understand and feel a part of the
landscape by
a Enabling them to access it. Some of the
people we engage will have never been to
these areas before and won’t have known
they are welcome there.
b Educating them about its natural
SLLP LCAP Projects
485

heritage, history and current uses.
Whether they live nearby or in the centre
of the city, people are being served by the
ecological and agricultural services of this
landscape (not to mention the drinking
water from the reservoirs). Many people
we engage will have no idea of how they
are connected to this landscape.
c Allowing them to feel the benefit of
spending time outdoors in nature. Many
people do not spend time in nature so are
unaware of the positive benefits to health
and well-being that taking this simple
step can have.
Strategic fit
Defra Strategy 2016-2020 ‘Creating a great
place for living’:
• Obj.1 - Environment- ‘Greater enjoyment of
the natural environment’.
• Obj2 - Food and Farming - ‘More British
food sold at home and abroad’ and ‘...
building a reputation for healthy, high
quality produce’.
• Obj3. - Rural- ‘Access to high quality
education and training’.
National Curriculum: Farm Visits provide
a wide plethora of opportunities to meet
learning outcomes from the national
curriculum such as:
• KS2 Science: ‘Identify that animals,
including humans, need the right types
and amount of nutrition and that they
cannot make their own food; they get
nutrition from what they eat’
• And ‘construct and interpret a variety of
food chains’
Outdoor learning provides opportunities
to engage with the entire curriculum in a
variety of creative ways such as using natural
materials to create artwork (KS1 art and
design: develop a wide range of art and
design techniques in using colour, pattern,
texture, line, shape, form and space ) and
‘taking part in outdoor and adventurous
activity challenges both individually and
within a team’ (KS1 PE)
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
1. A more connected and resilient landscape:
If our children are better educated about
their connectivity to the countryside this
will help them better understand and make
positive choices regarding their health and
the health of our environment.
=This in turn will help maintain a landscape
which is rich in diversity and opportunity
which supports the long tradition of small
scale farming.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy: Children and their
teachers will engage with the landscape
through the education sessions, teacher
network meetings and farm open days.
This will enable them to understand the
part they play in looking after their natural
heritage through the topics studied and
best practises which are shared.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for people
Young people and their teachers will learn
about our heritage through:
• outdoor learning sessions: 1,344
• school assemblies: 780
• open farm days: 6,800
• teacher network meetings: 180
486 SLLP LCAP Projects

Outcomes for communities
Negative environmental impacts will be
reduced By educating participants about
the environmental impact their lifestyle
choices have on the landscape, both
locally and globally, we hope to reduce
negative impacts which could include traffic
pollution, waste going to landfill and air
pollution.
They have an indoor classroom and we can
access areas of the farm and their fields for
appropriate activities.
Photographs
As the project continues over four years we
could issue follow up materials to partner
schools to measure whether children and
families are changing habits and whether
this is being embedded as new behaviour.
Groups of children who would not
normally access the landscape will be
given the opportunity to engage with the
natural heritage of the area and with our
agricultural tradition through this project.
Visitors to Our Cow Molly © Our Cow Molly
Approximately half of children engaged
through outdoor learning sessions in school
time will be from city schools, we will
engage approximately 600 children who
don’t normally have access to this kind of
cultural heritage.
The local farming community will be
better recognised for the ecosystem
services they supply to others and for their
environmentally sustainable business
practises.
Children getting hands on farming experience at an
Open Farm Day
More people will visit the area whilst on a
school trip which promotes environmental
sustainability and where staff discuss/model
simple positive behaviours such as recycling
and not dropping litter. This will hopefully
help to influence behaviours in the public
when they return to visit the area with
family and friends.
Consents required
No consents required.
Pupil from Manor Lodge Primary School on an outdoor
learning session with SRWT
Our main working area will be the land
owned by Cliff House Farm (aka Our Cow
Molly)
SLLP LCAP Projects
487

46. Telling local stories:
Our education programme will tell the story
of local agriculture and food.
47. Community engagement:
This is a community engagement project
with young people being the section of the
community we will engage.
Children from Ecclesall Infant School on an outdoor
learning session with SRWT
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
A Resilient Landscape: Education people
about food, farming and the environment
will feed in to the aims of this project.
Creating the buffer and stepping stones and
working with water: Creating a pond on land
owned by Cliff House Farm will increase the
opportunities within the education aspect
of our project.
Restoring the Lattice: Learning how to
create/repair drystone walls can feature into
KS2, 3 and 4 design technology as well as
being an option for groups such as Scouts/
Guides.
Art in the Landscape: Include school
sessions featuring natural art with this
project.
Digital Landscape: This could allow us to
link with secondary schools (through PE,
Geography and ICT) and groups of young
people (such as Scouts/Guides/Cadets) using
technology and the landscape together
through Geocaching and technology based
navigation activities.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
48. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially other
supporters.
Each school will produce some form of
‘photo record’ of their visit, this will be
available to the school for reporting to
parents. The report and all letters to parents
about the visit will recognise that the
programme has been sponsored by the
Heritage Lottery Fund.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
Hygiene and biosecurity will need to be
maintained as we will be on a working farm
and accessing the countryside. Guidance
will be issued to schools who are visiting
and we will take appropriate precautions
when carrying out activities such as pond
dipping or meeting livestock.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
We may need to draw up a contract
between ourselves and Cliff House Farm re:
delivering outdoor learning sessions on their
site.
Operational & Strategic
Once these sessions become embedded in
partner school’s timetables we hope that
they will continue to visit after the project
comes to a close.
We will charge an affordable price for
sessions in keeping with our outdoor
learning business plan. This will ensure
488 SLLP LCAP Projects

sustainability after the project comes to a
close as schools will not experience a jump
in price.
Legacy
Individual school visits are not expensive
and we will be looking to promote
sponsorship of visits by local industry in
future.
Risks
Lack of uptake from partner schools:
There are many barriers to getting schools
involved in outdoor learning/field trips. The
main issue facing schools is financial, both
the cost of the session and the cost of travel
to and from the site.
We will help to mitigate these by providing
a travel bursary for schools to enable them
to attend.
Our sessions are priced fairly to ensure they
are accessible by all schools.
Session content will be designed around
the national curriculum ensuring school
teachers can clearly see the benefits of
engaging with the project.
SLLP LCAP Projects
489

Landscape Connections
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New and existing staff
Staff salary 2,588.00 2,588.00 2,670.00 2,670.00 2,670.00 2,670.00 2,724.00 2,724.00 2,724.00 2,724.00 2,780.00 2,780.00 2,780.00 2,780.00 2,835.00 2,835.00
Staff Salary 525.00 525.00 535.00 535.00 535.00 535.00 547.00 547.00 547.00 547.00 557.00 557.00 557.00 557.00 568.00 568.00
Recruitment 500.00
Funding area
Management Overheads
Management of project 195.48 195.48 201.58 201.58 201.58 201.58 205.75 205.75 205.75 205.75 209.87 209.87 209.87 209.87 214.06 214.06
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Project Overheads
Travel for staff 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00
Training budget 450.00 450.00
Travel Bursary for Schools 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00 540.00
PPE 360.00
Non recoverable VAT 50.00 130.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 140.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Site equipment 1,350.00 3,240.00 1,350.00 2,500.00
Materials 225.00 225.00 225.00 225.00 1,060.00 112.50 947.50 112.50 112.50 112.50 947.50 112.50 112.50 112.50 112.50
Non recoverable VAT 150.00 665.00 175.00 25.00 191.00 25.00 12.50 178.50 512.50 12.50 12.50 178.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer/trainne travel 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00
Volunteer PPE 200.00
Volunteer training 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Publicity and promotion 500.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
91,474.88
490 SLLP LCAP Projects

Connecting Steps
Connecting Steps, helping everyone enjoy the countryside
Lead partner
Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust
150 word summary
Aim of the project:
The objective is to encourage more people
to visit, enjoy and use the Sheffield Lakeland
green spaces, woodlands, reservoirs and
interesting landscapes and history. We
want to reach people who are not currently
accessing the countryside by supporting
the work of existing community groups -
including local community groups, refugee
groups, those working with new arrivals
and other vulnerable or isolated people.
Our project will extend the reach of these
groups into the countryside, encouraging
and equipping them to include countrysidebased
activities in the programmes they
offer to their members.
We believe we will create a more lasting
legacy of connectedness to the natural
world by extending the work of community
groups in this way.
Full project description
The natural environment plays a vital role
in boosting a person’s wellbeing. Having
access, support and encouragement to
visit a range of landscapes such as parks,
reservoirs and woodlands provides a variety
of benefits whether as a place to exercise, try
out new skills to feel more connected to the
land, nature or local history. Simply, getting
outside enjoying the fresh air and being with
other people to reduce social isolation.
We aim to engage with 8 community
groups each year offering an orientation
programme of places and activities to suit
their needs. Initially we will provide each
group with 5 outdoor experiences for 10 -15
people per session.
The community partner organisations will
invite their members to these sessions and
assess the feedback from participants.
Having delivered these sessions, we will
then ensure that all community partner
organisations will have the confidence,
knowledge and contacts to do repeat
visits with their groups to continue to enjoy
the Lakeland area. The contacts that they
make will be valuable for arranging future
visits. E.g. SLLP Project partner contacts,
Local nature experts, activity providers
(including SRWT OL team), local transport
links and transport companies. We will
work with the community groups and the
partner organisations to create a “tool-kit”
as a reference for planning future sessions.
SLLP LCAP Projects
491

We can deliver workshops to support the
community organisations to put the tool kit
into practice.
Why the approach works: These facilitated
sessions are tailored to the needs of each
group and community. For the group
leaders, they will be able to assess the
positive impact on outdoor activities
and know what, where and how to run
the sessions again. For the participants,
a supportive and participative approach
helps people build confidence to try new
things and be more involved in their local
communities. The activities will provide a
welcome sense of purpose and spending
time in the natural environment will
improve health and wellbeing.
During each session participants will be
made aware of how they can continue to be
involved with the LLP through volunteering
or invitations to other events. Group leaders
will be informed of how to re-run the
session independently.
During the programme we will visit a
variety of Landscape Partnership partners
to introduce the group to the other
organisations and give a positive experience
of joining in with and exploring the
landscape partnership area.
Groups we have spoken to and who have
expressed interest in getting involved
include:
• Chinese Elders Community Group
• Refugee – conversation club
• New Arrivals Conversation Club
• Roshni
• Longley Four Greens Community Centre
• Parson Cross Community Café
• Terminus Initiative – Lowedges
• Wincobank Chapel lunch group
A typical programme would entail
Week one. Meeting participants, activity
about the Landscape Partnership
Week two, three and four: Take the group out
into the landscape area to try out an activity
e.g
- Stone face Creative to meet a stone
carver and to drawing and painting of
the sculptures. Cup of tea etc. around the
campfire on the site.
- Fox Glen woodlands to meet their project
team and have a guided walk or try out a
practical activity.
- Mid hope Reservoir for a walk around the
greens and then on to Our Cow Molly for
an Ice Cream.
(these are just examples – we would liaise
with other partners to explore wider
opportunities)
Week five Meet with the group in their
local space to reflect on the previous taster
sessions. Do a craft/collage with photos/video
etc activity to record their feedback and
then signpost people to other ways they can
continue to be involved with the Landscape
Partnership. Also, provide a workshop on the
toolkit of information to group leaders on
places to visit, activities to try and contacts
offering outdoor learning / crafts.
We would also work with other SLLP partners
to identify opportunities that participants
can get involved with independently –
something that is of interest to them.
Other taster activities to offer throughout the
project to include. Also to revisit previous
HLF funded projects in the local area.
- Archaeology
- Researching local history
- Practical woodland management skills
- Community Singing (Sound post)
492 SLLP LCAP Projects

- Dry stone walling
- Farm visit – to understand a more about
rural life
- Visiting reservoirs and viewpoints to get a
sense of the landscape.
- Nature photography
- Creative writing
- Art & craft sessions to connect with nature
/ landscape
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project.
Connecting Steps will be led and delivered
primarily by Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust Community Engagement
team, but will work with other organisations
within the partnership to signpost.
1. Sheffield City Council ‘Hidden History’
project
2. Researching local history
3. Practical woodland management skills
4. Sound post - Community Singing &
Dungworth woods joining in with carols
and local singing
5. Restoring the Lattice – Dry stone walling
6. Our cow Molly – Farm visit – to
understand a more about rural life
7. Yorkshire Water - Visiting reservoirs
and viewpoints to get a sense of the
landscape. Visiting Langsett / Midhope
Reservoir for; Nature photography,
Creative writing and Art & craft sessions to
connect with nature / landscape
8. Fox Glen Woodland – visit the woodland
potentially try out some practical
woodland management activity to give a
taster of community work day.
9. Stone face creative as a visit to Storrs
wood and dry stone wall taster session.
10. Exploring the lost bridleways. Walk the
bridleways meet the team behind the
project join in with their project.
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
• Sheffield City of Sanctuary
• Sheffield Chinese Elders Communities
• Clifton Learning Partnership, local
transport organisations.
• ROSHNI (South Asian Women’s Group
based in Sheffield)
• Manor & Castle Development Trust (social
café)
• SOAR (Parson’s Cross Social Café, Chapel
Town Social Café)
• Friends of Wincobank Hill
• Sheffield Royal Society for the Blind
• Churches together
• Longley 4 Greens (SOAR)
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
The project will improve people’s health
and wellbeing through spending more
time outdoors and getting involved with
their own community, making new friends,
reducing isolation, introducing or revisiting a
new landscape. The project will strengthen
the confidence and ability of local groups to
promote the landscape as a place people
can feel part of.
Strategic fit
Connecting Steps meets Outcome 2 of
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust 5
year strategic plan: more local people will
enjoy, understand, value and be inspired by
local nature and wildlife. They regularly visit
wildlife sites and green spaces – for leisure,
interest, exercise, health and wellbeing
SLLP LCAP Projects
493

In our experience over the previous 5 years
of facilitating sociable wildlife groups for
adults we have found that older and more
vulnerable people face a lot of barriers to
being able to access nature and need more
support than is currently available to be
enjoy the landscape and all the benefits of
being outside.
We have previously undertaken projects that
have worked to create supportive, inclusive
social groups in which people feel better
able to engage and access the local natural
environment. The regularity of the group
activity i.e. meeting more than once, helps
build the pre-steps, skills, build trust and
confidence which are vital for success of
future community engagement activities.
This project will take our learning from the
earlier Stepping Out project and apply it on
a wider scale by equipping groups to access
the countryside more independently.
Current research
Improving Wellbeing through Urban
Nature (IWUN) is a three year research
project awarded £1.3m by the Natural
Environment Research Council’s Valuing
Nature Programme. It aims to find out more
about how Sheffield’s natural environment
can improve the health and wellbeing of
the city’s residents, and especially those
with disproportionately high levels of poor
health. Sheffield & Rotherham wildlife Trust
have been a key part in developing this
work. By continuing to work with the IWUN
team we can ensure that this research helps
to influence our future work.
Projects like IWUN are the next step in
developing future public policy in this field.
The World Health Organisation and the
future of public parks inquiry report suggest,
establishing solid collaborations between
those who work in urban planning and
those in health sectors is an important next
step.
Wellbeing benefits from natural
environments rich in wildlife: a literature
review for The Wildlife Trusts University of
Essex 2015
This literature review provides an overview
of published evidence on the health and
wellbeing benefits of natural environments
and why nature matters to the health and
wellbeing of people in the UK. The review
also shows the way in which contact with
natural environments can facilitate each of
the Five Ways to Wellbeing identified by the
New Economics Foundation: connect, be
active, take notice, keep learning, and give.
The review found a range of evidence
from published peer-reviewed to suggest
that contact with a wide range of natural
environments can provide benefits for
health and wellbeing. These include
improvements to physical health through
increased physical activity; improvements
to psychological and social wellbeing,
including reductions in stress and anxiety,
increased self-esteem and resilience; and
improvements in social functioning and in
social inclusion.
It looks at the growing recognition of
the role that nature plays on wellbeing
and discusses the policy implications
public health, and health and social care
commissioning, environmental conservation,
and urban planning.
The New Economics Foundation (NEF)
have set out 5 actions a person can take
to improve their feelings of wellbeing. Be
Active, Give, Take Notice, Connect & Keep
learning. We use this as a framework for all
our sessions.
Alongside the NEF 5 Ways to Wellbeing is
an interesting piece of work which develops
the idea that people can improve their
wellbeing by connecting with nature in
5 broad ways. The research recognises
the closer a person feels to “nature” their
wellbeing also increases.
494 SLLP LCAP Projects

• Contact – The act of engaging with
nature through the senses for pleasure
e.g. listening to birdsong, smelling wild
flowers, watching the sunset.
• Beauty – Engagement with the aesthetic
qualities of nature, e.g. appreciating
natural scenery or engaging with nature
through the arts.
• Meaning – Using nature or natural
symbolism (e.g. language and metaphors)
to represent an idea, thinking about the
meaning of nature and signs of nature,
e.g. the first swallow of summer.
• Emotion – An emotional bond with, and
love for nature e.g. talking about, and
reflecting on your feelings about nature.
• Compassion – Extending the self to
include nature, leading to a moral and
ethical concern for nature e.g. making
ethical product choices, being concerned
with animal welfare.
Lumber R, Richardson M, Sheffield D (2017)
Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion,
compassion, meaning, and beauty are
pathways to nature connection. PLoS ONE
12(5): e0177186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0177186.
Healthy ageing is a concept promoted by
WHO, that considers the ability of people
of all ages to live a healthy, safe and socially
inclusive lifestyle.
Active Ageing Strategy 2016-2021
Active Ageing Strategy, the title of which
emphasises the key mechanism, active
ageing, which can maximise the quality
of life of people as they get older and can
minimise the difficulties they may face. The
new Strategy highlights the very positive
role that older people play in society and
identifies the key issues facing older people
which form barriers to active ageing.
Information about good practice in
community development and engagement
strategies.
Parks and outdoor spaces can play an
important role in supporting wellbeing and
connect for refugees and asylum seekers.
The resource booklet demonstrates how
and provides case studies and actions that
can improve access to and enjoyment
of parks. For more details see Refugees
Welcome in Parks. Risbeth, C, Blachnick
A, Ciarecek, D, Byron R. and Stapf, T (2017)
#Refugees Welcome in parks, a resource
book. Sheffield. The University of Sheffield
Jo Cox Loneliness Strategy For the first time,
Members of Parliament, policy makers and
more than a dozen leading organisations
have come together to expose the growing
crisis of loneliness and find ways to
overcome it.
Information about Place Based
communities
King’s Fund Moving Towards place - based
systems of care 1 March 2016
A place-based approach targets an entire
community and aims to address issues
that exist at the neighbourhood level, such
as poor housing, social isolation, poor or
fragmented service provision that leads to
gaps or duplication of effort, and limited
economic opportunities.
Place-based initiatives are programs
designed and delivered with the intention
of targeting a specific geographical
location and particular population group
in order to respond to complex social
problems. Typically, they focus on areas and
communities with entrenched disadvantage
or deprivation.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
1. A more connected and resilient
landscape: The landscape includes the
people who live, work and visit the land.
SLLP LCAP Projects
495

Connecting Steps will connect people
both to each other, the land and its
cultural heritage.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife:
The organisations and the participants
who are involved with Connecting Steps
will be introduced to various parts of
the Landscape Partnership project
and be better informed about how to
visit the area and how to get involved
with different aspects of the project for
the benefit of wildlife and the natural
environment.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors: Aspects of cultural heritage can
be included in this taster /orientation
programme by working alongside
other projects and SLLP partners. E.g.
Soundpost
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after
it – a landscape for all to learn about,
value, experience and enjoy: People
from Sheffield and Rotherham will have
a better understanding of the local
heritage as a result of visits and related
activities. Participants will be made aware
of the work of the Partnership and the
opportunity to become a volunteer. We
will share volunteer opportunities within
the partnership and session participants
will be invited to become volunteers.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured)
Cross reference with the HLF Monitoring
Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
If through the other Lakeland Partnership
Project Partners or other local organisations
are facilitating ”Citizen Science” projects we
will pass on details to and encourage the
Connecting Steps participants to join in.
Outputs for people.
We will deliver at least 40 activity
sessions per year involving people from 8
Community Groups.
Over the life of the project we will deliver 4
X 40 = 160 sessions involving people from
32 community groups. This will involve 8
Volunteers developing skills and confidence
in working with community groups
32 local activity providers will be
encouraged to use the Connect Steps
to tool kit containing contact details
for partner organisations and ideas and
guidance for doing their own, independent
visits with their community groups in the
future.
We will create Case Studies / Stories of
change & Wellbeing / that can be shared
publicly by the Partnership
We will have a referral network of
opportunities to sign post people to the
next thing to engage with. Check on
their progress and continue contact and
encourage to use the resource took kit
(postcards/newsletters/Social Media etc.)
Outcomes for communities –
Negative environmental impacts will
be reduced though as participants
become aware about how to visit the area
independently by public transport routes.
A wider range of people will have engaged
with the landscape and heritage because
we are identifying and partnering with
community groups with established links
into the community.
By engaging with the orientation
programme and having the toolkit,
community groups will be more confident,
suitably informed and better connected to
use outdoor spaces and activities, which
496 SLLP LCAP Projects

will improve health and wellbeing in the
community.
How we will assess this:
Feedback from participants –
questionnaires, photos, comment cards,
social media including questions about
effect on wellbeing
Feedback from community group organisers
about the programme and follow up about
future events they undertake independently.
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects.
We will work with a variety landscape
partnership organisations
group which meets each week in Longley.
Travel was by minibus from Longley 4
Greens Community Centre.
Feedback from participants –
“It’s been wonderful to sit in the woodland
and draw the structures and buildings from
real life. I’d like to come back and spend
more time here. It is so peaceful” Gerry
Visit to Our Cow Molly
This was a 2.5 hour visit.
We visited Our Cow Molly after a walk
around the picturesque village of Lower
Bradfield. Including simple activities like
- Sound Post community singing, Singing
at Dungworth woods joining in with carols
and local singing
- Fox Glen Woodland – visit the woodland
potentially try out some practical
woodland management activity to give a
taster of community work day.
- Steel Valley Woodland
- Visiting Langsett / Midhope Reservoir
- Archelogy taster sessions
- Stone face creative both as a visit to Storrs
wood and dry stone wall taster session
- Exploring the lost bridleways
Pilots of Landscape Partnership Stepping
Out Activities
Over the last few months we have arranged
the following visits to the area to explore
which were very successful.
Stone Face Creative
This was a 2.5 hour visit exploring Storrs
Wood. We met with Andrew Vickers and
did some Campfire, drawing and painting of
the sculptures
15 people attended from a Wild at Heart
feeding the ducks by the flood memorial
plaque. Learning about the history of the
village and checking the bus stops so
people knew how to get to the village if they
wanted to make a return visit. We looked at
the village green and cricket pitch which is
very different to Longley 4 Greens. We then
went on to Our Cow Molly to meet one of
the farm workers who told us a bit about
making ice cream where they were able to
showcase a good example of local farming
adding value to their product (milk into ice
cream) and give some information about
the set up they have at the farm. The group
enjoyed seeing the recently born calves
sitting on straw in the barn. The group
enjoyed buying locally produced milk to
take home with them and were interested
to discover it is stocked in various places
SLLP LCAP Projects
497

around the city. There is a classroom that
could be used for a longer more in-depth
visit. We enjoyed an ice-cream sitting out in
their garden at the farm.
13 people attended
Travel was by minibus from Longley 4 Greens.
Feedback from participants
“I have enjoyed the walk to get an ice cream
and met some lovely people. It is great to be
able to get local milk” Jim
Visit Redmires Reservoir
One of the monthly Nature photography
sessions was to visit a moorland habitat
on the edge of the city. We walked up
the easy access footpath from Redmires
Road up to the surveying pillar overlooking
To reward us for venturing out in such poor
weather we saw a water vole which people
were thrilled by. The scope for revisiting
over time to experience the beauty of such
a rich and diverse landscape so close and
accessible to the city is huge. We spent 1.5
hours there in wet conditions but everyone
was very keen to come back in the future.
We met individuals at the rendezvous point
on Redmires Road.
Feedback from participants
“I have enjoyed everything today, I like to be
near water as it gives me a sense of peace
and happiness. These sessions have given
me a life connected with nature. I have
done things I have never done before and
learnt so much about Wildlife.” Jill
Visit to Holly Hagg Permaculture Farm to
see the alpacas
In the Spring of 2017 we arranged a visit to
explore Holly Hagg Permaculture farm. We
had 20 people join in with the 2 hour visit
where we had a guided tour of the farm
Ash Cabin Flat, Rivelin Valley and Wyming
Brook Nature Reserve. We also showed and
explained the value of Hammonds Field
Nature Reserve.
It was a very wet day but 11 people turned
up well prepared for the weather in such an
exposed spot. Given the weather conditions
it was invaluable to be able to access such
a well maintained all weather footpath (flat,
easy access even surface).
We employed a nature photography tutor
to be at the session to give advice and
encouragement to the participant, to give
people a boost on their photography skills.
and an introduction to basic permaculture
principles for looking after the land.
We met their alpacas and took them on
a walk. Some people, who couldn’t join in
with walking on the very steep slope of the
lower part of the site were able to pond
dip and relax in the sunshine and enjoy the
views overlooking the Rivelin Valley.
Everyone came together for refreshments
498 SLLP LCAP Projects

around the pond. We enjoyed a really lovely
hour in the sunshine where the alpacas
came to bathe in the pond!
Feedback from participants
“It is great to visit such an interesting place.
I would never of come here before in my
previous 60 years of living in Sheffield. It was
great to see the alpacas and see the views.
Coming along to the session has increased
my confidence to try different challenges”
Dave
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
locations and projects in the area that were
funded by HLF previously. A Landscape
Partnership project is in a unique position to
‘celebrate’ other HLF projects.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Operational
We are embracing this project as an
opportunity to widen our horizons and
work with a broader range of communities
in partnership with dedicated specialist
community groups. We believe there are
many opportunities to meet our objectives
by working with others.
Strategic
As a result of the project more people will
have a better understanding of the Sheffield
Lakeland areas and take positive action
Risks
People may not want to engage with the
project. The solution is that we would
ensure appropriate marketing and work
with local community organisations to gain
their support.
1. Telling local stories
We will help intergrate new people with
their landscape by telling local stories, but
also we hope they will help us by creating
new stories which will become local stories.
Community organisations closing during the
life of the project – network disappears. We
would be proactive at looking at what other
community organisations could be involved
as an alternative partner.
2. Community engagement
This is a community engagement project
3. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially other
supporters.
We will ensure that the communities
we work with are fully aware that the
programme is supported by the Heritage
Lottery Fund. In addition we will target
SLLP LCAP Projects
499

Connecting Steps
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Staff Salary 1,405.77 1,450.63 1,450.63 1,450.63 1,450.63 1,481.33 1,481.33 1,481.33 1,481.33 1,510.96 1,510.96 1,510.96 1,510.96 1,541.18 1,541.18
Staff Salary 2,587.86 2,587.86 2,669.15 2,669.15 2,669.15 2,669.15 2,724.78 2,724.78 2,724.78 2,724.78 2,779.28 2,779.28 2,779.28 2,779.28 2,834.86 2,834.86
Recruitment 500.00
Funding area
Management Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Project Overheads
Vehicle 1,600.00 1,600.00 1,600.00 800.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Site equipment 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 600.00
Transport 2,400.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 1,200.00
Room Hire 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 500.00
Professional fees 1,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 1,500.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer support budget 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Publicity and promotion 500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 750.00 500.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
Contingency 106,148.09
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
91,474.88
500 SLLP LCAP Projects

Art in the Landscape
Wildlife at Olive Mill Dam, Loxley Valley, walking distance
from the city. Photo: C. Watts
Lead partner
Sheffield Lakeland Communications and
Engagement Officer and Connecting Steps
Officer with the support of other delivery
partners listed below.
150 Word summary
The Art in the Landscape strand will
celebrate the creativity and rich heritage
of Sheffield Lakeland and will harness the
power of the creative arts to work with
communities in strengthening their sense of
connection with the landscape.
For example by:
• Eliciting a deeper, more emotional
response than a simple visit.
• Providing a frame to look at the landscape
in a new light or through “different eyes”.
• Introducing new audiences to the
different aspects of the physical
landscape or identifying changes in the
landscape over time.
• Widening engagement with the
landscape to new audiences.
• Helping participants express complex
feelings, provoke thought / reaction to
address controversial topics.
The following elements of the Arts in the
Landscape project are being delivered
wholly or in part by means of other project
strands and so are described in the
respective proformas.
• Two Stone Sculpture projects funded
under Restoring the Lattice to be
undertaken by Stoneface Creative
• Restoration of the Band Stand at Fox Glen,
Stocksbridge, Stocksbridge Steel Valley
Project £18,000
• Telling the Stories of the Landscape
separately described. (£11,000)
• ReSound, the music of the landscape
£9,000
SLLP LCAP Projects
501

This leaves a remaining budget of £16,500
to deliver two further Arts in the Landscape
objectives:
1. Landscape Perspectives £15000
A well-being based project which will make
use of smartphones to engage participants
in activity led access to the landscape:
• Digital photography
• Geocaching
2. Supporting events £1500
A small budget to pay fees for event
performance, original composition or choral
/ instrumental arrangement
Full project description
1. Landscape Perspectives
“Healthy places are restorative, uplifting,
and healing for both physical and mental
health conditions”.
Public Health England: Greenspace, mental
well-being and sustainable communities
This project harnesses the therapeutic
benefits of access to the outdoors, via an
activity led approach, employing smart
phone technology. (Links to other projects:
Digital Landscape & Connecting Steps).
The two activities are:
• Landscape / wildlife photography
• Geocaching
The project will deliver photography and
geocaching workshops a beginner level and
will be based around use of a smart phone
(camera / GPS). Participants will come
from a range of ages and backgrounds,
experiencing mental health problems,
including anxiety, depression, loneliness, low
self-esteem and may be drawn from within
the SLLP area, the urban fringe or be city
based.
This project draws inspiration from the
research currently being undertaken by
Dr Jo Birch and Dr Clare Rishbeth at the
Improving Wellbeing through Urban Nature
project (IWUN) at Sheffield University.
http://iwun.uk/humans-in-a-green-city-whonotices-who-connects-who-feels-a-healthbenefit/
An activity based approach is considered to
be beneficial:
• Provides a reason to go out and stay out
• Gives something to talk about
• More interesting than just “going for a
walk”
• Delivers wider capacity building benefits
e.g. map reading.
The particular activities have been chosen to
make effective use of the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape and to minimise barriers /
maximise gateways to participation:
• Low cost / low specialist equipment
requirements
• Rapid skill acquisition
• Low language barriers
• Minimal fitness levels required
• Something you can do on your own or in
company
• Strong “real-world” and online communities
of enthusiasts to provide on-going support
and motivation / sharing of success
In each year, a cohort of 10-12 participants
will be offered the opportunity to take part
in 6 monthly supported sessions in either
photography or geocaching. Participants
will be encouraged to network with each
other to take additional photographs or go
geocaching between guided sessions.
In addition to visits into the Sheffield
Lakeland landscape, some sessions will
502 SLLP LCAP Projects

focus on skills acquisition or be used to
encourage reflection on landscape, feelings
in relation to the places they have visited
and the imagery produced / geocaches
uncovered.
At the end of each 6 month period,
the photography co-hort will create
an exhibition for local display and the
geocaching cohort will be invited to create
and locate their own geocache within
the Sheffield Lakeland area. Participants
will be sign-posted to supportive online
photography communities or geocaching
communities and will also be invited to
volunteer to support the following year’s
projects.
E.g. Valley Boy’s Photography Club which is
based around Stocksbridge
https://www.facebook.com/
groups/217585675397484/
Or https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/
GC5HQXB_sheffield-city-centre-treasure-
hunt?guid=008aa202-429e-4741-bf4d-
0b72a0005f7f
Participants will be signposted to other
opportunities such as volunteering with the
Wildlife Trust. (Volunteering Co-ordinator)
The support of the IWUN research team
at Sheffield University will beneficial in
helping to signpost the project to suitable
participants and suitable methods of
qualitative evaluation. Participants will
complete self-evaluation questionnaires
before and after completing the workshops.
There will be a combined exhibition of
photography from all the years at the end
of the project. This will be an opportunity
to celebrate the achievements of all the
participants and bring the project and the
Sheffield Lakeland landscape to the notice
of a wider audience as well as to recognise
the contribution of all the supporting
organisations. Having their work publicly
exhibited will provide additional self-esteem
benefits to the participants. The exhibition
will also include text relating to how
participants feel about the landscape and
the impacts it has on their well-being.
A final report will be prepared as a
presentation / conference paper in order to
disseminate learning from the Landscape
Perspectives project to interested groups /
stakeholders.
The project proposes to work with a total of
8 cohorts over the 4 years of the project (4
photography / 4 geocaching),
Each cohort participates in 6 workshops =
48 workshops
10-12 people in each cohort.
Total budget: £15000
2. Supporting Events
This is a small discretionary budget retained
to cover the costs of:
• Performance fees for bands, choirs, dance
teams or storytellers / poets at Landscape
Partnership events
• New composition or arrangement of
music to suit community choirs or training
bands – for example the music written to
commemorate the 150th anniversary of
the Great Sheffield Flood.
Total budget £1500
Supporting documents
1. Improving Well-being through Urban
Nature (IWUN)
2. http://iwun.uk/publications/
3. http://iwun.uk/humans-in-a-green-citywho-notices-who-connects-who-feels-ahealth-benefit/
4. Nature Connections Research by Dr Miles
Richardson
SLLP LCAP Projects
503

5. https://findingnature.org.uk/2017/05/10/
beyond-knowing-nature/
6. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/
article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177186
Other Partners and Organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• SRWT Connecting Steps
• Mentoring support agreed
• Refugees Welcome in Parks Project
(advisory capacity as above)
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
• Conversation Clubs
• Social Cafes
• Sheffield Environmental Movement
How does the project contribute to our
Vision
• Increasing participation in outdoor
activity, widening the range of groups
who feel part of the landscape.
• Increasing nature and landscape
connectedness, sense of place
• Self-esteem routed in appreciation of the
value and stories of place.
• Better understanding of eco-system
services – contributing to an evidence
based for anecdotal well-being benefits of
access to a high quality environment.
Strategic fit
• Government’s Foresight project on Mental
Capital and Wellbeing:
• http://neweconomics.org/2008/10/fiveways-to-wellbeing-the-evidence/
• Public Health England: Greenspace,
mental well-being and sustainable
communities
• https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.
uk/2016/11/09/green-space-mentalwellbeing-and-sustainable-communities/
• Natural Capital Committee (Eco-system
Services)
• https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/
natural-capital-committee
• Sheffield, Outdoor City Strategy
Meet one or more SLLP Programme
Objective (and how)
1. A more connected and resilient landscape:
Opportunity to showcase the health and
well-being aspects of eco-system services
and to increase the knowledge base for
the health and welfare benefits of access
to nature.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife:
Use creative activity as a mechanism to
increase nature connectedness for people
who do not regularly access their natural
environment.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people
and visitors: Legacy of photography and
emotional responses captured / recorded.
Interpretation via geocaching reaching
new audiences.
4. Better understanding of the local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy: Looking at the
SLLP through the lens of people new to
photography or through a new activity
e.g. geocaching – new perspectives.
Opportunities for a wide range of people
to value, experience and enjoy new
perspectives on the landscape through
the final exhibition.
504 SLLP LCAP Projects

HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
Outcomes will help inform legacy
management planning for the SLLP – i.e.
a further justification for an accessible,
well managed landscape (natural capital
valuation).
Photography and Geocaching will be used
to record built, natural and cultural heritage
of the SLLP area. Will help us better record
our heritage.
1. Improved well-being / self-esteem
assessments from participants.
2. Longer term follow-up: number
of participants continuing to use
photography or geocaching as a reason to
visit the SLLP.
3. Number of people from early year’s
volunteering to support later cohorts.
4. Number of people joining a follow-on
activity e.g. an enthusiasts group (online
or realworld) or other volunteering activity.
Photographs
Outputs for people
• 40 people will attend 24 workshops
• 1000 people will see the touring
exhibition of photography
• Geocaching outputs are in Digital
Landscape proforma.
10 people will volunteer their time, 80
people will have measurably developed
skills and 1080 will have learned about
heritage.
Outcomes for communities
Well-being outcomes measured by selfassessment
questionnaires pre and post
participation.
More people and a wider range of people
will have engaged with heritage
The project will draw participants from with
the SLLP area, its urban fringe and from the
city and will particularly target people who
do not self-identify as “nature connected”.
Your local area/community will be a better
place to live, work and visit
Photos C. Watts
SLLP LCAP Projects
505

Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
1. Priority species
We will contribute to supporting Species
through our focus for photography.
2. Telling local stories
Geocaching and photography are
effective storytelling tools.
3. Digital landscape
YouTube video presentation of progress
of participants, use of social and other
digital media to share photography /
Geocaching = digital treasure hunt.
Risks
Insufficient recruitment to activities – work
closely with partner organisations to plan
and obtain buy in at an early stage.
Changes of staff mean that contacts
established during development phase
are lost – maintain contacts through “stand
down period” between the end of the
development phase and start of delivery.
Ensure good handover notes between
Development and Delivery stages.
Changes of staff in partner organisations.
Ensure delivery partners are fully aware of
the level of commitment they are entering
into.
4. Community engagement
This is a community engagement
project, working with people affected by
mental health conditions.
5. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters
Recognition of HLF support across all
published media / exhibitions, plus
conference presentation opportunities,
musical performance opportunities.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Operational
These are revenue projects. We will work
with partners to ensure that as far as
possible materials created are retained in
an accessible format and available freely for
use by others.
Strategic
Sense of place, valuing of the landscape,
well-being based eco-system services.
506 SLLP LCAP Projects

Art in the Landscape, Fox Glen Heritage
Lead partner
The project will be run by the Steel Valley
Project and overseen by Sheffield City
Council Parks and Countryside who own
the land and are a strategic partner in the
Sheffield Lakeland.
150 word summary
Fox Glen was gifted to the people of
Stocksbridge by Samuel Fox in 1911 when
this former industrial site was converted
into a public park. The site is iconic in
Stocksbridge and is well remembered by
the older generations for its former facilities,
with paddling pools and a bandstand,
where performances were held until recent
years.
The project will restore the bandstand to a
usable condition, rationalise the paths on
the site to make them more useable and
install interpretation, to give the younger
generations a glimpse into Fox Glen’s
fascinating past.
The project will involve work which will
mainly be carried out by volunteers under
the guidance, support and training of SVP
staff. Community involvement will be key
to safeguarding these sites for the future
and this project will aim to provide a lasting
legacy of infrastructure and interpretation,
which will help people to engage with Fox
Glen.
SLLP LCAP Projects
507

Full project description
Bandstand restoration
The currently overgrown and dilapidated
bandstand would be repaired using
concrete, enabling it to be used again for
public performances.
Mature trees, currently shading the
bandstand and depositing leaves onto it
making it slippery would be removed.
The stairs at the top of the bandstand,
leading to the adjoining path, would be
replaced with a less steep path, improving
access and safety.
A celebratory event would be held at
the end of the project to celebrate the
restoration of the bandstand and engage
widely with the local community.
Interpretation
Two new interpretation panels would be
installed using information and photos
provided by Stocksbridge History Society,
helping local people t understand Fox Glen’s
unique history, including the bandstand and
paddling pools.
Access improvements
The footpaths at Fox Glen are very mixed,
with some in good condition and others
having fallen into a state of disrepair over
the years. There are too many paths for such
a small site and in order to avoid disturbing
the wildlife the home site is home to, some
of the paths may be permanently closed,
with the remaining paths being upgraded
to improve public access.
A workshop with the local community
would be held likely at a local school, to
help site users to feed into the process of
rationalising the paths and improving how
people can use the site for recreation.
Supporting documents
1. SCC woodland management plans
2. Stocksbridge History Society archive
documents
Other partners and organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• Sheffield City Council will be overseeing
the work that is carried out by SVP and will
have management responsibility after the
delivery of the project is complete.
• Stocksbridge History Society will contribute
towards the historical information to be
used in the production of the on-site
interpretation.
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
The local school will be involved in
community workshops to rationalise the path
network, deciding which path should benefit
from improvements.
How does the project contribute to our
vision?
The clough woodland that forms Fox Glen
will be improved for people to enjoy, explore
an celebrate. The practical work that will be
carried out will enable many volunteering
opportunities, engaging the local community
in site management and contribute towards
improved health outcomes for project
participants.
Strategic fit
The Outdoor City Strategy 2015- ‘Infrastructure
to support a quality experience’- this project
will contribute towards improved infrastructure
to enable access to the outdoors, including
2 new ‘run routes which will be promoted
through the Outdoor City website
The Move More Plan 2015- ‘Empowered
Communities’ and ‘active environments’-
this project will engage volunteers in their
environment encouraging them to be
active in the outdoors and involved in site
management, leading to positive health
outcomes.
508 SLLP LCAP Projects

Green and Open Space Strategy 2010-
‘Green connections for people and wildlife’-
this project will provide improved access for
people.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
1. A more connected and resilient landscape:
Improved connections for people
between the two sides of the valley which
forms Fox Glen.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife:
Improved public access in Fox Glen.
Outcomes for communities
Littering on site should be reduced due
to opening up the site for more users and
making it look more ‘cared for’.
Consents required
Sheffield City Council are a strategic partner
in the SLLP, they have given permission
for agreed works and are part funding the
project.
Photographs
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people
and visitors: Better understood
heritage through work with the local
history society and engagement of the
community through volunteering.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after
it – a landscape for all to learn about,
value, experience and enjoy: Better
interpreted features, allowing visitors to
learn about the heritage of Fox Glen and
more opportunities for volunteering and
recreation.
The now dilapidated bandstand, where numerous public
performances have been held including ‘Carols in the
Glen’.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
1 woodland site will be improved an better
managed.
1 historical feature will be restored
2 new interpretation panels for heritage
The old paddling pools, where children once played in
the stream, where interpretation will tell this story.
Outputs for people
8 people will volunteer their time, learn
heritage skills and learn about their
heritage.
SLLP LCAP Projects
509

On site interpretation and marketing will
further engage the community.
10. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters.
SVP website, social media and local press
will all be utilised to promote the project.
Biosecurity / Confidentiality
The path network is extensive at this relatively small site,
the project aims to both improve and rationalised this,
with work being informed by the local community.
Demonstrate links / cross-fertilisation to at
least 2 other projects
1. Woodland Heart
This project will contribute to the
overall better management and access
improvements to the SCC woodland
estate within the SLLP project area.
2. Hidden history
The archaeology of the project sites is
varied and it is hoped that more can be
discovered about the woodlands past,
which may inform the project and how
it is progressed. The project includes
heritage interpretation.
Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
8. Telling local stories
Interpretation for the Fox Glen will tell
fascinating local stories of how the site
was once used.
When undertaking practical work, SVP
staff, volunteers and contractors will clean
PPE and equipment to prevent the transfer
of diseases, spores and seeds to contain
potential biohazards.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Operational
Sheffield City Council are the landowner
and will maintain the features that will be
built during the course of the project.
Strategic
The project will create better infrastructure
for members of the public to be able to
enjoy recreation in Fox Glen. The site will
be better understood by members of the
community and they will have been able to
contribute to its management, giving them
a sense of ownership.
Risks
Lack of volunteer support- this will be
mitigated by SVPs volunteer recruitment
and support, including providing
transportation for volunteers to this remote
site.
9. Community engagement
Volunteers will be engaged throughout
the practical projects and members of the
community will be involved in planting
the community orchard at Oxley Park.
510 SLLP LCAP Projects

Art in the Landscape ReSound
Carols, Communities, Songs and Stories
This image shows the area, original folk collecting notes, traditional carol singing, our work bringing it to
young people and the sharing it.
Lead partner
Soundpost Community Network
150 Word summary
ReSound will reinvigorate, re-establish
and revoice vital elements of the local
cultural heritage of the Sheffield Lakeland
communities: the distinctive carol tradition
of the local area; stories and songs of
the land and water, of past trades and
significant places and people; lost traditions
and site specific work.
ReSound will bring to life local material
locked in memories, archives, manuscripts
and the physical environment, and celebrate
it by creating accessible and inclusive
opportunities for all the community to share
and contribute to the project.
ReSound will explore, enjoy and engage
with traditional carols, stories, folklore, songs
and music of the area, and inspire new
work celebrating the local environment,
landscape and communities. Local
participants will be able to work alongside
professional musicians, singers and
songwriters, as well as contributing their
own family histories and taking part in a
range of community activities, including
local site specific work.
Full project description
Objectives
• Work with 4 local groups – a mix of
schools and community groups – with An
Introduction to Sheffield Carols project
with final performance, and including
teacher/leader training opportunity
– embedding the carols with a new
generations and audiences.
• Encourage participation in Carol project
by parents/carers/grandparents and family
members, to establish and embed the
carols in the local community, and share
the tradition across generations.
SLLP LCAP Projects
511

• Engage with local choirs, singing groups,
music groups, adult learning etc. with ‘An
Introduction to Sheffield Carols’ project
and encourage performances from them
in community settings with opportunity
for audience participation.
• Develop links with Deepcar Brass Band
and include them in the carols project
and performance.
• Encourage participation from University
of Sheffield music and ethnomusicology
students, to embed Sheffield Carol
tradition in new generation of music/
singing leaders
• Re-establish the carol singing tradition in
Fox Glenn, Deepcar through a community
event and workshops, and linking with
existing groups.
• Facilitate the creation of a Sheffield
Lakeland Song Cycle based on the
cultural heritage of the region inspired
by local stories of the land and water,
and stories of past trades and significant
places and people. This will link with
other groups involved in the project such
as the Heritage Highways group and
Archaeology Project.
• Coordinate a series of facilitated ReSound
sessions led by professional song writer(s)
who will work with participants in
weaving the oral history and research
information into the songs; linking to oral
history volunteers and local knowledge.
Description of project
Soundpost was established in Dungworth in
2011. Originally conceived to deliver a unique
Singing Weekend exploring the singing
traditions of the British Isles, developing
practical skills with thinking attached,
Soundpost has now delivered several
nationally recognised weekend festivals,
day workshops, study days and school
projects each grounded in Soundpost’s
ethos: to provide people from all walks of life
(particularly young people) the opportunity to
explore new ways to access traditional music.
Project activity
• 20 carol workshops targeted at school/
community groups with pupils/parents/
carers/teachers/family/local singers etc.
including specific workshops targeted at
Fox Glen involvement.
• Final Fox Glen culmination day with carol
performance, including brass band
• Creation and printing of resources
• Research sessions by volunteers, students
and professional artists in partnership
with University of Sheffield, Dr Ian Russell,
English Folk Dance & Song Society and
others.
• 5 community singing/writing sessions led
by singer/songwriter
• Final local event for stories and songs
evolved through project
• Creation of new resources from stories/
songs
• Volunteer recruitment and involvement
• Project Management
• Marketing
• Evaluation, monitoring and
documentation
Who will benefit
• School children in local catchment area
• Local teachers and staff
• Parents/carers and family members
• Active community groups and music/
choir groups
• Audiences to performances
• University students
• Volunteers
• Local musicians and singers
512 SLLP LCAP Projects

Quantitative / Qualitative
Evaluation is an important part of
Soundpost organisational approach.
Monitoring will be carried out at each event,
with quantitative data gathered as required
by HLF on individuals engaging in the
programme.
In addition, we will be asking for more
qualitative statements, quotes, anecdotes
and reflections from participants on their
learning, understanding and appreciation
of the cultural heritage itself, and on the
process and personnel involved in the
workshops and performances throughout
the project.
We will also document the different stages
of the projects, so there is evidence of how
people and ideas progressed throughout
the span of the project through the different
elements. We will use diaries, video, photos
and audio recordings.
Supporting documents
1. Examples of Soundpost’s work can be
seen on the website: www.soundpost.org.
uk
Other Partners and Organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
University of Sheffield (TBC): Soundpost
has strong links with staff at the University,
and a proven track record of providing
meaningful and extensive opportunities for
their students to gain practical experience
of community music activities through
working with us on projects such as this.
We aim to build on this relationship over the
coming years, and further strengthen our
cooperation.
Sheffield Music Hub (TBC): Soundpost has
been developing a good relationship as a
folk music provider to the Sheffield Music
Hub, and strengthening the opportunities
for the two organisations to do more work
together. This has included work at various
school across Sheffield. We aim to build on
this relationship over the coming years, and
further strengthen our cooperation.
Deepcar Brass Band (TBC): Soundpost has
worked with various brass players from the
Sheffield region, and have access to relevant
arrangements and scores for bands. We
aim to develop links with this band to reestablish
the Fox Glenn tradition.
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
We will be encouraging participation
from University of Sheffield music and
ethnomusicology students, to embed
Sheffield Carol tradition in new generation
of music/singing leaders. These students
vary each year, and we have very close
partnerships with lecturers, academics
and student societies which give us the
confidence that we will still have access to
these students when the project is up and
running.
How does the project contribute to our
Vision
Carols, songs and stories gathered and
created by the ReSound project will
have the capacity to educate, inspire and
motivate people to understand more about
this specific heritage and landscape. They
can provide characters, colours, images and
narratives to extend people’s knowledge
and empathy of the subject matter
and local connections in an accessible
format. These songs and stories can keep
spreading the word, and be used to help
interpret and publicise the landscape and
heritage to visitors and future generations.
The project will encourage people to
sing together, which is recognised as an
activity to boost health and wellbeing.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/
news/10496056/Choir-singing-boosts-yourmental-health.html)
SLLP LCAP Projects
513

Meet one or more SLLP Programme
Objective (and how)
1. a more connected and resilient landscape:
This project celebrates the intangible
cultural heritage of the landscape. It will
help tell the stories and special nature of
this area to local communities and other
audiences, developing further awareness
and recognition to support the area in the
future.
3. better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people
and visitors: ReSound will encourage
people to research further about their
local cultural heritage and deepen this
new learning and understanding by
creating opportunities for people to
come together, share the knowledge, and
participate in events and activities that
bring that cultural heritage to life for the
contemporary communities in the area.
There will also be opportunities for the
professional artists and community
members to creatively reflect on the
impact and contemporary resonances
of the cultural heritage and share their
work through performance opportunities,
including site specific work and activities.
4. better understanding of the local heritage
with more people helping look after
it – a landscape for all to learn about,
value, experience and enjoy: Songs and
stories gathered and created by the
ReSound project will have the capacity
to educate, inspire and motivate people
to understand more about this specific
heritage and landscape. They can
provide characters, colours, images and
narratives to extend people’s knowledge
and empathy of the subject matter
and local connections in an accessible
format. These songs and stories can keep
spreading the word, and be used to help
interpret and publicise the landscape and
heritage to visitors and future generations.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for people
200 people from Schools, community
groups and general public will have
developed their singing skills, aural skills,
and worked as a team.
10 Individuals will have developed song
writing skills and research skills
200 people from Schools, community
groups and individuals will have had the
opportunity to talk part in local traditions
and appreciate the history and context of
the carol tradition particular to this area.
15 Individuals including university students
will have supported the project by assisting
with the research and also taking part in
the activities, as well as supporting others in
accessing the events and workshops.
Outcomes for communities
Local people involved in the creation, and
as an audience of the new songs, will have
a greater understanding of the landscape
– the challenges and the future potential –
and how they fit in with it through their life
habits and choices.
Demonstrate Links / Cross fertilisation to
at least 2 other project
As this is a partnership project we expect to
create synergies and mutual benefits across
the partnership. Hopefully you can identify
how your project will work with others. This
is not the same as the cross-cutting themes
below.
ReSound will link to the Heritage Highways
groups, Sheffield City Council (for Fox Glen),
and the Archaeology group in order to gain
access to local stories and knowledge about
the area for use in the Sound Cycle.
514 SLLP LCAP Projects

Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
49. Telling local stories
Through the creation of a 4 song cycle
emphasising the local stories, heritage and
culture of the area.
50. Monitoring and Evaluation
Evaluation is an important part of
Soundpost organisational approach.
Monitoring will be carried out at each event,
with quantitative data gathered as required
by HLF on individuals engaging in the
programme.
In addition, we will be asking for more
qualitative statements, quotes, anecdotes
and reflections from participants on their
learning, understanding and appreciation
of the cultural heritage itself, and on the
process and personnel involved in the
workshops and performances throughout
the project.
We will also document the different stages
of the projects, so there is evidence of how
people and ideas progressed throughout
the span of the project through the different
elements. We will use diaries, video, photos
and audio recordings.
51. Community engagement:
working with schools and community
groups in the local area, and encouraging
participation in the intangible cultural
heritage.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legacy - what happens after project?
• Identification of key community
connectors, through the workshops and
activities, who can promote continuation
of lost traditions and activities in the area
in future years.
• Provision of relevant carol texts and
partnerships that can be exploited in
future years and performances.
• Continuation of Fox Glen, Deepcar
community carol event.
• Carols more widely known and shared
within the local community
• Audiences educated about Sheffield
Lakeland through new songs cycle,
performed locally and regionally.
• Deeper connections between people and
the landscape and heritage of the area
voiced and shared through the project’s
outputs.
Risks
1. Professional artist(s) not able to fulfil
contract due to sickness/illness:
Soundpost has contacts with other
professionals, and would secure a
replacement artist of a similar high-quality
skill set to undertake the work.
2. External funding isn’t available as
planned: Soundpost will do its best to
explore alternative external funding
opportunities to replace, and, as a last
resort, consider re-profiling the project in
discussion with the SLLP.
SLLP LCAP Projects
515

Art in The Landscape
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Staff Salary 199.06 199.06 199.06 199.06 199.06 199.06 199.06 199.06 199.06 199.06 199.06 199.06 199.06 199.06 199.06 199.06
Pay increases 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Management Overheads 67.81 67.81 67.81 67.81 67.81 67.81 67.81 67.81 67.81 67.81 67.81 67.81 67.81 67.81 67.81 67.81
Management of project 89.69 89.69 89.69 89.69 89.69 89.69 89.69 89.69 89.69 89.69 89.69 89.69 89.69 89.69 89.69 89.69
432.50 432.50 432.50 432.50
Pay rate increase 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13
Office rent/recharge 71.75 71.75 71.75 71.75 71.75 71.75 71.75 71.75 71.75 71.75 71.75 71.75 71.75 71.75 71.75 71.75
Non recoverable VAT 17.94 17.94 17.94 17.94 17.94 17.94 17.94 17.94 17.94 17.94 17.94 17.94 17.94 17.94 17.94 17.94
Funding area
Project Overheads 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00
Vehicle 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25
Travel for staff 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75
Expenses for staff 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25
Training budget 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75
PPE 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75
Non recoverable VAT 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50 24.50
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Tools 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00 42.00
Materials 100.00 100.00 300.00 200.00 200.00 100.00 300.00 100.00 600.00
216.50 216.50 216.50 216.50 216.50 216.50 216.50 216.50 216.50 216.50 216.50 216.50 216.50 216.50 216.50 216.50
3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50
500.00 75.00 75.00
200.00
150.00 150.00 400.00
20.00 20.00 10.00
150.00 125.00 125.00
Contractors 80.38 80.38 80.38 80.38 80.38 80.38 80.38 80.38 80.38 80.38 80.38 80.38 80.38 80.38 80.38 80.38
480.00
Professional fees 1,000.00 500.00 500.00 1,000.00 500.00 500.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 500.00 1,000.00 500.00
2,980.00 2,000.00 2,000.00
Non recoverable VAT 20.00 20.00 60.00 40.00 40.00 20.00 60.00 20.00 120.00
120.00 100.00 60.00 50.00
85.56 85.56 85.56 85.56 85.56 85.56 85.56 85.56 85.56 85.56 85.56 85.56 85.56 85.56 85.56 85.56
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer/trainne travel 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75 43.75
400.00 200.00 400.00 200.00 400.00 200.00 400.00 300.00
75.00 75.00 50.00
Volunteer PPE 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50
150.00 100.00 100.00 50.00
Volunteer training 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25 26.25
Volunteer support budget 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
Non recoverable VAT 40.00 90.00 50.00 20.00 90.00 50.00 20.00 90.00 50.00 20.00 90.00 70.00
10.94 10.94 10.94 10.94 10.94 10.94 10.94 10.94 10.94 10.94 10.94 10.94 10.94 10.94 10.94 10.94
Funding area
Publicity and promotion 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00
300.00 100.00 100.00
Non recoverable VAT 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00
30.00
Funding area
Contingency
M&E 180.00 40.00 180.00
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
46,089.96
516 SLLP LCAP Projects

The Digital Landscape
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Facebook
Page screenshot
Lead partner
Sheffield Lakeland Communication and
Engagement Officer with the support of
specialist suppliers where relevant
150 Word summary
The Digital Landscape strand will deliver the
new SLLP website and will additionally make
use of digital media and the opportunities
offered by smart phones / podcasts /
Youtube to reach wider audiences and share
self-generated content.
Digital Landscape projects will run as a
connecting thread through other landscape
partnership strands.
The following elements of the Digital
Landscape project are being delivered
wholly or in part by means of other project
strands and so are described elsewhere.
• Sheffield Lakeland website, delivered by the
Core Project and described more fully in
the Gateways to the Landscape – improving
access to information project. The budget
for the website is shown in the Digital
Landscape budget spreadsheet.
• Telling the Stories of the Landscape, Flood!
(video) and A Disappearing Landscape
(podcast and photographic census).
This leaves a remaining budget of:
• £1000 to support a series of interpretative
geocaches to be located around the
Sheffield Lakeland landscape. New
locations will be prioritised along the new
walking routes being developed under the
Gateways to the Landscape strand.
• £5000 to create a “My Sheffield Lakeland”
video in the final year of the project which
can be compared to the short videos created
during the development year, as a before
and after of the achievements of the SLLP.
SLLP LCAP Projects
517

Full project description
Digital Landscape
1. Interpretive Geocaches
Geocaching is a popular past-time which
makes use of GPS co-ordinates to a
combined digital and real world treasure
hunt. The wide availability of GPS apps on
smart phones has opened up this pursuit
to a wide range of participants. Geocaches
involve a combination of map skills and
puzzle solving and links to a competitive
digital community.
There is wide anecdotal evidence that
the hide and seek thrill of tracking down
geocaches is a way of persuading reluctant
children to continue on a long walk!
This project will locate and upload to https://
www.geocaching.com/play/search a series
of Sheffield Lakeland themed geocaches
relating to:
• The 3 Telling the Stories of the Landscape
themes
• The Heritage Highways project
• They will be placed along the routes of
new walks designed under the Gateways
to the Landscape project.
Geocaching is not without problems and
over popular sites can result in disturbance
or trespass.
Therefore further advice will be taken before
installing geocache locations relating to:
• The Community Archaeology projects
• SRWT nature reserves
The map above shows the existing distribution of
geocaches in the Sheffield Lakeland area. New caches
will be located with a view to encourage exploration
of new areas, whilst respecting the privacy and
management needs of landowners.
The long term maintenance of the
geocaches will be adopted by the local
geocaching community.
Source: https://www.geocaching.com/play/
search
Cost: £1180.00
2. “My Sheffield Lakeland” – video
During the project development year, the
SLLP development team commission the
production of two videos –
• My Sheffield Lakeland – a visual statement
of significance
• The Visual LCAP – an image led summary
of the Landscape Conservation Action
Plan.
These two videos provide a base line of the
landscape and how people feel about it and
respond to it.
In the final year of delivery, we will create
a new video which visits a selection of
the projects which have been delivered
518 SLLP LCAP Projects

and asks people how they feel about the
landscape now. The video will be a project
in its own right, but will also serve as a key
part of the monitoring and evaluation of the
projects that are featured in it.
As with the Visual LCAP, the video will
feature the voices of the people of Sheffield
Lakeland with a background of original
music composition.
Although we won’t put the video together
until the last year of delivery, elements of the
video will be filmed in each year to capture
as many of the project elements as possible
and so some budget has been put into each
year for the services of a videographer.
We will create a unique water inspired
soundscape to accompany the video which
will involve the participation of local people
and musicians based in the Sheffield
Lakeland area.
The video will be 10 minutes long in total,
but will be in 4 sections ( 2mins 30 secs
each) to reflect the 4 outcome areas of the
SLLP. Each section will be capable of being
used as a stand alone video.
Cost £5000 inc VAT (NB Ignite Imaginations
do not charge VAT)
Digitisation Service
We have an opportunity to digitise a
range of papers and records relating to St
Nicholas’s church and history of Bradfield
Village to compliment the ‘Supporting Local
Groups’ project. This will require a specialist
digitising service.
Cost £2,700 + £540 VAT
Supporting documents
3. The benefits of using technology for
society
4. https://www.theguardian.com/globaldevelopment-professionals-network/2014/
mar/13/technology-civil-society-policy
5. Nature Connections Research by Dr Miles
Richardson
6. https://findingnature.org.uk/2017/05/10/
beyond-knowing-nature/
7. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/
article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177186
8. Improving Well-being through Urban
Nature (IWUN)
9. http://iwun.uk/publications/
Other Partners and Organisations directly
engaged in delivering the project
• Children’s University (tbc)
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
• Ignite Imaginations
How does the project contribute to our
vision
• Increasing participation in outdoor
activity, widening the range of groups
who feel part of the landscape –
particularly targeting the 5-13 age group.
• Increasing nature and landscape
connectedness by using a treasure hunt
approach.
Strategic fit
Public Health England: Greenspace, mental
well-being and sustainable communities
https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.
uk/2016/11/09/green-space-mentalwellbeing-and-sustainable-communities/
Meet one or more SLLP Programme
Objective (and how)
1. A more connected and resilient landscape
Use of modern technology to promote a
more connected landscape.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife
SLLP LCAP Projects
519

The Digital Landscape is a thread that
runs through the landscape partnership,
enabling the partnership to make the
most of digital reach through website,
facebook and other social media outlets.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors
Using Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to
capture photos, memories and reactions
on an interactive basis.
My Sheffield Lakeland video will provide
a lasting record of the landscape and the
achievements of the SLLP.
4. Better understanding of the local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy
Widening participation in countryside
access amongst young people, will
help provide the next generation of
people who will care about the Sheffield
Lakeland area.
By the end of the project the following
number of people will have been touched
by us through the digital landscape
and social media, we will work with
the Monitoring and Evaluation team to
determine the impact of this.
• 25,000 views on website
• 1000 Facebook likes
• 1000 Twitter followers
• 200 Instagram followers
5 (local geocaching fans have already
volunteered to assist with developing the
puzzles and locating the geocaches).
Outcomes for communities
Increasing profile for the Sheffield Lakeland
area within and outside of Sheffield with
benefits to the visitor economy.
Consents required
From landowners of geocache locations
Photographs
Local people sharing their views of the
landscape via the My Sheffield Lakeland
video.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for people
• Interactive platforms to share views and
concerns about issues in the Sheffield
Lakeland.
• Opportunities to showcase the best
producers / accommodation providers /
attractions in the Sheffield Lakeland.
• More reasons to explore the heritage of
the Sheffield Lakeland area.
A sample of geocaching paraphernalia, copyright
Creative Commons.
500 people taking part in activities such as
geocaching will have developed skills
520 SLLP LCAP Projects

Cross Cutting Themes (Golden Threads)
Please note, or reference from previous text,
how you will contribute to or work with the
following:
1. Telling local stories
Geocaches are a Digital Landscape way of
telling local stories
2. Digital landscape
Website, social media platforms, video
3. Monitoring and evaluation
Link geocache evaluation with that for of
the new walking routes in Gateways to
the Landscape. Other digital projects to
be monitored using analytics feature to
establish social reach.
Social Media: Ad hoc rather than strategic,
fails to deliver key messages. Work to
a communications strategic with clear
messages
Geocaching: Caches may get lost, stolen or
forgotten. Caches which are over popular
may result in localised damage. Work
closely with local geocaching community
to monitor usage and remove any caches
which become problematic.
Final year My Sheffield Lakeland Video
– professional quality not achieved,
messaging unclear. Work with professional
videographer and an agreed brief to achieve
the right feel and deliver key messages.
4. Communicating the good work of the
Heritage Lottery Fund, and potentially
other supporters
Recognition of HLF support across all
geocaches
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Legal and agreements
Agreements needed with landowners
Operational
On-going maintenance of geocaches
required – this will be taken on by the
geocaching community, but care will be
needed to ensure that messaging is not lost.
Risks
Website: delays in design, quality, usability
issues, difficulty in establishing itself
amongst other websites. Messaging
unclear. Work closely with the designer
with a clear idea of how the website should
work, monitor performance and adjust
architecture if needed.
SLLP LCAP Projects
521

Digital Landscape
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Funding area
Management Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Project Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Materials 800
Contractors 2700
Professional fees 10400 500 500 500 3500
Non recoverable VAT 2240
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Volunteer/trainne travel 100
Volunteer support budget 100
Non recoverable VAT 20
Funding area
Publicity and promotion
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
£21,360.00
522 SLLP LCAP Projects

Sheffield Lakeland Community Grant Scheme
Being reactive can help keep the community engaged with your project.
Lead partner
Bradfield Parish Council and Stocksbridge
Town Council are the main supporting
partners.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
as lead partner will be employing the
Communication Engagement Officer and
Finance Officer who will ‘administer’ the
project.
150 word summary
A competitive grant programme running
throughout the SLLP Delivery Phase.
Available for a wide range of activities, all of
which must meet a heritage criteria of HLF.
To encourage and support wide community
involvement in the SLLP programme,
particularly during delivery phase where
most of the budget is allocated and the
local community has limited opportunity to
continue to influence funds.
Although communities will be involved at
every level of SLLP there is a requirement for
a dedicated small project fund specifically
for their use, to facilitate projects and
activities that come from the community
and link their close interest to the greater
SLLP Programme.
Full project description
What is the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership (SLLP) Community Grant
Scheme?
The SLLP community grant scheme is
designed to help fund and implement
appropriate projects within the SLLP
SLLP LCAP Projects
523

area (see map attached). SRWT would
be administering the scheme via the
Engagement Officer and can give
assistance and/or advice to potential
applicants to ensure the best possible
outcome.
Promotion and assistance
Bradfield Parish Council and Stocksbridge
Town Council form the ‘core’ of the
Community Grants Programme, they will
contribute funds toward it, promote it
within and beyond the SLLP boundary and
support the application process by advising
applicants.
Suitability
All applications will be submitted to the
SLLP Administration and Engagement
Officers to ensure they meet HLF LP criteria
before being assessed by the relevant
council.
Match from Council
As each council has restrictions regarding
how their contributions can be allocated,
predominantly geographical but in
the case of Bradfield PC they are also
restricted to supporting capital projects,
all applications will initially go to their
respective finance committees so that
council match funds can be identified
against appropriate projects.
The Panel
All suitable projects, some with match
funding from one or both of the councils,
others with none, will then go to a judging
panel who will consist of representatives of
both councils together with non-elected
community representatives and one or
more member of the SLLP Steering Group.
This panel will decide which projects are
awarded a grant.
The decision process
On the basis that all applications that reach
the panel are ‘suitable’ for inclusion in the
SLLP programme, as the SLLP core team will
already have confirmed technical suitability,
decisions will be made subjectively with
criteria including:
• Geographical spread
• Value for money
• Additional draw down of match in cash
and volunteers
• Range of activity
• Variety of communities being engaged.
Before we agree to fund any project a copy
of the application form will be sent to the
Heritage Lottery Monitor for comment.
The Delegated Grant Scheme will be one
key tool of the SLLP Engagement Officer in
their Objective of engaging and involving
communities, they will act as ‘administrator’
on behalf of SRWT and coordinate the
programme and panels.
Who can apply?
The scheme is open to voluntary and
community groups, schools and social
enterprises that are based in the SLLP
project area and external groups wishing to
deliver a project in the area. Groups need
to be able to provide match funding, in-kind
and / or volunteer time for their projects as
the scheme will only fund up to 75% of the
total project costs from the HLF and match
budget. As with HLF guidelines all groups
must be properly constituted and able to
offer recent audited accounts or if new then
dedicated bank account details.
Non-constituted groups may be able to
access the community grants through
competitive application only if the SRWT, as
lead partner, acts as accountable body.
524 SLLP LCAP Projects

What the Scheme will fund
1. The project must address one or more of
the SLLP’s areas:
2. a more connected and resilient landscape
3. bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife
better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors
4. better understanding of the local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy
What type of grants will the Scheme give?
The scheme will allocate grants for both
capital costs e.g. equipment; and/or revenue
costs e.g. room hire. When a grant is
allocated it will be done so as one payment
in arrears to the applicant identified on
the application form. Applicants will
be expected to spend the grant for the
purposes and in the timescale stated in the
Grant Offer letter.
How large are the grants
The scheme will award grants from £500
to a maximum of £5,000 from the SLLP
budget. There will be no limit on the
number of applications an organisation
can make as each award will be based on
merit, but each organisation must complete
the current grant before submitting an
application for the next. The grants panel
will meet quarterly to make decisions on
complete applications.
The Community Grant programme will be
promoted by the Parish and Town Council
and the dates by which applications need to
be submitted by will be released in the local
press, in the SLLP newsletters, website and
facebook and other prominent places in the
locality.
Successful applicants
Successful applicants will be sent a Grant
Offer letter and a Conditions of Grant form.
In order for the money to be released to the
applicant they need to sign and return the
form to indicate that the conditions have
been accepted. After the money has been
spent the applicant must complete and
return a Monitoring Form, this will mean
that the scheme can ensure compliance
with the grant conditions and inform how
the money has helped contribute to the
scheme’s objectives.
Supporting documents (Appendix 17)
1. Community Grant Scheme Guide
2. Grant Application Form
3. Offer Letter and Terms & Conditions
4. End Of Grant Report Form
Other organisations benefitting or taking
part in your project or key target audience
This programme will be open to any
community / social group, based in the
SLLP or otherwise, who wish to deliver a
qualifying project in the area. This may
include:
• Local Groups (in the area) wanting to
deliver events (revenue) inside and outside
the area.
• Local and Non-Local Groups wanting to
deliver capital projects in the area.
It is proposed that Steering Group members
and Delivery Partners; organisations who
have agreed projects which utilise funds
from the HLF SLLP programme already
should be exempted from taking part in the
Community Grant Scheme.
SLLP LCAP Projects
525

How does the project contribute to our
vision?
The Community Grant Scheme is aimed
at supporting groups who want to make a
difference in their community, delivering
projects which will help people value, enjoy
and understand our heritage.
Strategic fit
Sheffield City Council Core Strategy:
Environmental improvements will be
brought about through negotiation and cooperation
with developers and landowners
as development takes place and funding
associated with economic regeneration
and initiatives such as the Upper Don Walk.
The City Council will work in partnership
with local landowners, community groups,
the South Yorkshire Forest Partnership
and Yorkshire Forward. Initiatives in
environmental enhancement would be
made in partnership between the Council,
developers, the South Yorkshire Forest
Partnership and other environmental and
local community groups and funding will
be sought from forestry resource grants,
lottery funding, landfill tax credits and the
voluntary and business sectors.
Identify how your project meets one or
more of the SLLP programme objectives
All project applicants will have to explain
how they meet one or more of the
objectives below.
1. A more connected and resilient landscape.
2. Bigger, better and more joined up natural
environment for people and wildlife.
3. Better recorded and valued cultural
heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors.
4. Better understanding of local heritage
with more people helping look after it – a
landscape for all to learn about, value,
experience and enjoy.
HLF priorities met (quantitative and/
or qualitative and which can be directly
measured) Cross reference with the HLF
Monitoring Spreadsheet.
Outputs for heritage
10 projects will identify ongoing
management strategies for heritage
features.
10 physical heritage items, locations or
habitats will be in better condition as a
result of practical work by the community.
10 projects will include research, collation
of information and dissemination regarding
the heritage they are working with.
Outputs for people
50 individuals from 20 organisations will
benefit from increased competence in
project design and management
250 people will have attended educational
or information events about the heritage
features within the projects.
At least 100 people will have volunteered
their time.
Outcomes for communities
5 projects will mitigate (protect) or
adapt (change in some way) heritage
features which are deteriorating due to
environmental factors.
20 number of people will become involved
in planning and delivering a Heritage Lottery
funded
Applicant groups, not including time spent
in application process.
Legacy and long-term management
implications
Groups are required to explain how they
meet HLF requirements in their application.
526 SLLP LCAP Projects

Risks
Insufficient uptake of the grants programme
The PC and TC are confident they can /
will promote these grants widely and that
there are sufficient local organisations with
impetus and interest to make use of them.
Poorly delivered projects reflect poorly on
SLLP and HLF
Groups will be asked to deliver projects as
they describe in the application, should they
suffer difficulty they can contact SLLP for
support / advice.
Projects do not meet agreed outcomes
The assessment process asks groups to
identify outcomes, we will offer advice and
support to help them be realistic. Grants
are only payable in arrears and in the worse
cases we may withhold payment.
SLLP LCAP Projects
527

Community Grants
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Funding area Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
New staff or extending contracts
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Management Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Project Overheads
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
The Project (Capital Costs)
Contractors 9100 9100 9100 9100 9100 9100 9100 9100 9900 9100 9100 9100
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Volunteer/trainee costs
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Publicity and promotion
Non recoverable VAT
Funding area
Contingency
M&E
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
M&E £110,000.00
Legal fees
Non recoverable VAT
£21,360.00
528 SLLP LCAP Projects

Sheffield Lakeland: A landscape alive
to the sound of water, bird song and
human voices, in which the telling
of stories past and present deepens
understanding of the area’s special
significance and inspires new
audiences and future generations
to share in and protect its unique
character and sense of place.
529

Appendices

Appendices and Supporting Documentation
Appendix 1 Governance and Partnership Agreement
Appendix 2 Delivery Agreement
Appendix 3 Landscape Character Assessment
Appendix 4 Ecosystem Services Report
Appendix 5 Ecological Assessment
Appendix 6 Heritage Assessment including Woodland Archaeology
Appendix 7 Access and Gateways to the Landscape Appraisal
Appendix 8 Audience Development and Community Engagement Report
Appendix 9 Working with Volunteers Advice Note
Appendix 10 CIB Working with Volunteers Good Practice Guide
Appendix 11 Mosaic Project – Working with BAME Communities Good Practice Guide
Appendix 12 Community Engagement Strategy and Development Year Outcomes
Appendix 13 Water, Walls and Walks Report
Appendix 14 Nominate a Wall – Walling Prioritising Exercise
Appendix 15 Access to Heritage Condition Reports
Appendix 16 Community Grant Scheme Supporting Information
Appendix 17 Employment, Job Descriptions, Person Specifications and CVs
Appendix 18 Confirmation of Match Funding
Appendix 19 Full Cost Recovery Calculations, Salaries and Management Costs
Appendix 20 Notes on Third Party Agreements
Appendix 21 Working with Water Research Plan
Appendix 22 HLF Evaluation Workbook
Appendix 23 Final SLLP Budget Summary
References and Bibliography

Appendix 1
Governance and Partnership
Agreement

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Shaping a Resilient Landscape
Delivery Phase
Governance Structure and Partnership Agreement
This document outlines the approach to governance, partnership working, terms of reference
and delivery arrangements for the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership. It will be
accompanied by more legally binding Delivery Agreements for those partners who will take
direct responsibility for managing and delivering projects through the Landscape Conservation
Action Plan 2018-23.
Governance Structure
All contacts, shaping and
influencing
Oversight, common fund, LCAP
content, setting the direction
and advising the Programme
Managers
Programme Management
The Landscape Partnership and other consultees.
Over 200 organisations and individuals recorded as contributing
to development phase. Consultations, community events,
scoping exercises and pilot projects undertaken during
development phase have engaged a further 350 organisations
and individuals (as of September 2017)
The Steering Group
1. Bradfield Parish Council
2. Environment Agency
3. Natural England
4. Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
5. Sheffield City Council
6. Sheffield United Community Foundation
7. South Yorkshire Archaeology Service
8. Stocksbridge Town Council
9. Yorkshire Water
Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust as Lead Partner
Keith Tomkins (Project Development Manager)
Claire Watts (Communication and Engagement Officer
Jo Walker (Administration Officer)
Roy Mosley (Department Head)
Project Delivery (LCAP)
Core Programme, LCAP
Management
Landscape Partnership
Delivery Partners
There are three different types of partners:
1

1. The Landscape Partnership Steering Group: a small group of partners who have significant
interest in the programme’s success as a whole. Their task is to steer and guide the
partnership team, keeping to budget, managing risk and focussing on priorities. Each
Steering Group Partner has signed up to a governance structure and partnership
agreement (which includes terms of reference) as set out in Appendix 1. The Steering
Group Partners are listed overleaf.
2. The Landscape Partnership Delivery Partners: a wider group of partners with a specific
interest in contributing and/or delivering a particular activity or project within the
partnership programme. Each Delivery Partner will be formally engaged in a specific
project as it is delivered e.g. by means of a contract or agreement.
3. The Landscape Partnership: the ever growing community of interest wanting to be
involved in the partnership, including artists, land owners, walking groups, local access
forum etc. The current contact list is over 200.
2

The Partnership
The Landscape Partnership Steering Group will be made up of the following:
Organisation Contact Name Project Interest
Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust (SRWT)
(Lead Partner)
Yorkshire Water (YW)
Sheffield City Council (SCC)
Bradfield Parish Council
(BPC)
Sheffield United Community
Foundation
(SUCF)
Natural England (NE)
Environment Agency (EA)
South Yorkshire Archaeology
Service (SYAS)
Stocksbridge Town Council
(STC)
Liz Ballard, Chief Executive,
Roy Mosely, Head of
Conservation & Land
Management,
SRWT Trustee(s)
Geoff Lomas, Catchment and
Recreation Manager
Dave Aspinall, Countryside
Manager
Cllrs Mavis Butler & Vickie
Priestley, Bradfield Parish
Council
Mark Todd, SUCF Head of
Foundation (replaced by Chris
Bailey)
Felicite Dodd, NE Team Leader
for Peak District National Park
area.
Jo Briddock, Catchment Coordinator
Don and Rother and
Adam Mullen (deputy)
Jim McNeil, Archaeologist
Alan Law, Stocksbridge Town
Council
Trevor Bagshaw
Lead partner, landscape-scale heritage
conservation, engagement and
improved access for all
Regional Water Company, Large land
owning interests, improving
management of woodlands,
biodiversity and public recreation.
Large land owning interests,
improving woodland management
and public benefits
Local community involvement and
improvements and promotion of the
area as appropriate.
Engaging a diverse community in
becoming more active and explore the
outdoors
Landscape-scale conservation plan
and advice / provision of data.
Countryside stewardship scheme.
Taking forward water framework
directive opportunities to improve the
catchment for people and biodiversity.
The archaeological advisors to the
councils of Barnsley, Doncaster,
Rotherham and Sheffield, also offering
advice to a wide range of other land
managers and developers.
Local community involvement and
improvements and promotion of the
area as appropriate.
Non-voting co-opted advisor
3

Appendix 1
Steering Group Partnership Agreement and Terms of Reference
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Steering Group commits to a shared
programme of activity to help achieve our vision:
"A more natural and resilient lakeland landscape for everyone
to value, enjoy, understand and feel part of"
We aim to achieve the following programme outcomes:
Outcome 1: A more connected and resilient landscape
To be measured by:
The increase in ecosystem services/benefits for people
The area of mixed and resilient woodland species planted
Reduced flood risk further down stream
Diversity in tree age and species
Connected habitats through management changes and planting
Outcome 2: Bigger, better and more joined up natural environment for people and
wildlife
To be measured by:
The area/number/percentage of new or existing Nature Reserves or Local Wildlife
habitat improved and better managed
The area of priority habitat created, restored, reconnected or expanded
Number of records added to Biological Records database
Outcome 3: Better recorded and valued cultural heritage celebrated by local people
and visitors
To be measured by:
Awareness surveys and evaluation of participants and visitors
Number of records added to Historic Environment Records database
Number of key heritage features restored and/or better protected
Outcome 4: A better understanding of the local heritage with more people getting
involved to help look after it – a landscape for all to learn about, value, experience and
enjoy.
To be measured by:
Awareness and experience surveys and evaluation of participants and visitors
Awareness and experience surveys and evaluation of children and young people
Number of people volunteering
4

Number of people under-represented in the countryside who are involved with
the project
Number of people/local groups who feel more enabled to continue to record,
look after and celebrate their local heritage
Through the life of the Landscape Partnership Programme, the Steering Group will:
Ensure the programme is working towards our agreed final vision and outcomes and those
of the Heritage Lottery Fund
Offer our skills, knowledge, networks and expertise to enable the efficient and effective
development and delivery of the Partnership’s work programme
Support and assist the Partnership Development and Delivery team, in carrying out their
tasks and fulfilling any Heritage Lottery requirements
Steer and guide the programme of development and delivery to ensure outputs and
priorities are delivered on time as planned.
Oversee financial and budget procedures at a strategic level to ensure they are robust and
income and expenditure targets are met
Actively support the fundraising requirements for any outstanding match funding, or as
new project activity is identified
Propose, identify and champion projects that meet the vision and outcomes of the
Landscape Partnership
Champion the Landscape Partnership at a local, sub-regional and regional level to ensure
that maximum benefit is achieved
Work together to resolve conflicts that may arise and to manage and mitigate risks
Submit any information, records or evidence requested in a timely manner
Attend all Steering Group meetings, and support any relevant project delivery groups set
up to develop particular activity during the development or delivery phases
Disclose any conflict of interest and maintain high professional standards and integrity at
all times.
We recognise the responsibilities of the lead applicant, Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust,
and expect them to:
Co-ordinate the Steering Group to review successes and inform the development of the
project
Co-ordinate the grant claims and submit information for the project, in-line with
timescales agreed with Heritage Lottery Fund, and reporting to all funders and partners
Receive the grant payments and distribute as appropriate, all funds received
Ensure compliance with acknowledging the support of Heritage Lottery Fund
Ensure that Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust approves any resources or publicity
that is produced for the project before they are used.
5

We agree to work together to ensure that the Partnership’s activities adhere to both Heritage
Lottery Fund’s and the Trust’s procedures and conditions (with Heritage Lottery Fund taking
precedence should conflict arise).
Terms of Reference
During the Delivery Phase the Steering Group will:
Meet quarterly or more frequently as required by the process
Ensure adequate records are made of decisions taken, actions required and agreements
made
Be chaired by a representative from the Steering Group. The Chair will focus on ensuring
the Group operates efficiently & effectively in order to deliver the Landscape Partnership
outputs for partners and HLF, on time and within budgets.
Receive reports, presentations, recommendations and information from partners and the
Landscape Partnership team
If necessary, use a 1 organisation 1 vote approach to making hard decisions.
6

Each Steering Group Partner confirms its commitment to this Partnership
Agreement and Terms of Reference as follows:
Organisation Contact Name Signed/Dated
Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust (SRWT)
(Lead Partner)
Yorkshire Water (YW)
Bradfield Parish Council
(BPC)
Environment Agency (EA)
Sheffield City Council (SCC)
Natural England (NE)
South Yorkshire Archaeology
Service (SYAS)
Stocksbridge Town Council
(STC)
Sheffield United Community
Foundation
(SUCF)
Individual, non-voting
advisor
Liz Ballard, Chief Executive
Geoff Lomas, Catchment and
Recreation Manager
Cllrs Mavis Butler & Vickie
Priestley, Bradfield Parish
Council
Jo Briddock, Catchment Coordinator
Don and Rother
Dave Aspinall, Countryside
Manager
Felicite Dodd, NE Team Leader
for Peak District National Park
area
Jim McNeil, Archaeologist
Alan Law, Stocksbridge Town
Council
Mark Todd, SUCF Head of
Foundation
Trevor Bagshaw
7

Appendix 2
Delivery Agreement

DATED
SHEFFIELD and ROTHERHAM WILDLIFE TRUST
(Lead Partner of SLLPP)
AND
(Insert) Steering Group Partner
(Insert) Project Sponsor Organisation (Non-Steering Group delivery partner)

AGREEMENT
relating to the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership ("SLLP")

INDEX
PAGE
BACKGROUND 1
1. DEFINITIONS 2
2. CONSIDERATION 4
3. OBLIGATIONS OF THE ACCOUNTABLE BODY 4
4. STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT 5
5. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS 5
6. INDEMNITY FOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS 6
7. DURATION OF THE SCHEME 6
8. SCHEME MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 6
9. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 7
10. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE 9
11. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 9
12. ASSIGNMENT AND SUB-CONTRACTING 11
13. FUNDING AND PAYMENT 11
14. PUBLICITY 11
15. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE 12
16. TERMINATION OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SCHEME BOARD 12
17. NO PARTNERSHIP 12
18. COUNTERPARTS 13
19. LAW 13
20. NEW PARTIES 13
21. CONFIDENTIALITY 13

BACKGROUND
0.1 The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership (the "Scheme") is a Heritage Lottery Fund
Partnership Scheme. The Accountable Body of the Scheme is Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust ("SRWT"), who has entered into the Grant Agreement pursuant to which
funding has been provided by the Heritage Lottery Fund ("HLF"). This Agreement
formalises the working and funding arrangements between The Accountable Body and
the Delivery Agents.
0.2 The Steering Group will oversee the Scheme and make recommendations to The
Accountable Body and the Delivery Agents.
0.3 The Accountable Body is responsible for receiving funding from HLF. The Accountable
Body will co-ordinate the Scheme and individual Parties shall be responsible for
delivering their respective parts of the Scheme.
0.4 The vision for the Scheme is to create a better understanding of the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape and to tackle the threat of loss or decline to the landscape in order to
preserve its special character.
0.5 The overall aim of the Scheme is to deliver projects which will restore, conserve,
enhance and promote the distinctive cultural heritage of the Landscape. This will
include the involvement of the community and visitors in learning about, celebrating
and accessing the heritage of the Landscape.
1

IT IS HEREBY AGREED
1. DEFINITIONS
1.1 In this Agreement (which expression shall be deemed to include any schedules and
appendices) unless there be something which is inconsistent in the subject or context
the following expressions have the following meanings:
"Accountable Body"
means Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust acting
in its specific role as administrator of the Grant
Monies as set out in clause 9.1 and elsewhere in the
Agreement where Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife
Trust is expressly mentioned then it should be
assumed that Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
is acting as a Delivery Agent.
"Agreement"
means this agreement;
"Steering Group"
means the steering group comprising those
members appointed to manage and oversee the
Scheme;
"Contractor"
means any person or team under contract with the
Delivery Agents to undertake work on the Scheme by
way of Projects;
"Delivery Agents"
means all the Parties to this Agreement delivering a
Project within the Scheme;
"Funders"
means funders, apart from HLF, contributing to the
Scheme from time to time;
2

"Grant Agreement"
means the agreement between HLF and the
Accountable Body dated.
"Grant Monies"
means monies received by SRWT from HLF (or from
other Funders) in order to carry out the Project in
accordance with the aims and objects of the Scheme;
"HLF"
means the Heritage Lottery Fund;
"Initial Period"
means a period of 10 years from the date of this
Agreement;
"Landscape"
means the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
area;
"Parties"
means the parties to the Agreement, and “Party”
means any one of them;
"Project"
means an individual project of work, a number of
which make up the Scheme carried out by the
Delivery Agents;
"Project Milestones"
means the dates by which a part of the Project is to
be completed as set out in the Project Plan;
"Project Plan"
means the detailed plan describing the Project and
setting out the Project timetable (including Project
Milestones) which has been approved by the
Accountable Body and is included as Appendix 2;
"Scheme"
means the combination of projects which make up
the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership;
3

"Standard Terms of Grant"
means those standard terms issued by HLF and
agreed to by the Parties and set out in Appendix 1.
2. CONSIDERATION
In consideration of the mutual agreements and undertakings set out this Agreement,
the Parties have granted the rights and accepted the obligations herein.
3. OBLIGATIONS OF THE ACCOUNTABLE BODY
The Accountable Body shall:
3.1 Deliver the Scheme in accordance with the aims and objectives directed and agreed by
the Steering Group.
3.2 Manage the financial and contractual administration of the scheme including the
drawdown of funds from HLF and any other Funders.
3.3 Support the delivery of Projects by Delivery Agents and community groups.
3.4 Keep accurate records of income and expenditure of the Scheme to meet the needs of
HLF and any other Funders.
3.5 Keep accurate records of the achievements of the Scheme.
4

3.6 Ensure that the Projects and the overall Scheme meets and fulfils the grant conditions
of other Funders.
3.7 Maintain the overall records and ensure that it complies with its contractual obligations
pursuant to the Grant Agreement and the Standard Terms of Grant.
4. STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT
4.1 The Delivery Agents recognise the authority of the Accountable Body in managing the
Scheme pursuant to the Standard Terms of Grant and where there are other Funders,
the conditions of grant of such Funders.
4.2 In addition to complying with the specific provisions of this Agreement, the Delivery
Agents will co-operate with The Accountable Body and take such reasonable and
practicable steps in the circumstances to assist them in meeting HLF’s Standard Terms
of Grant together with the conditions of grant of any other Funders and the overall
delivery of the Scheme.
5. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
5.1 Each Party shall deliver the parts of the Scheme for which it is decided by the Steering
Group that Party is responsible.
5.2 Risk and responsibility for the effective delivery of the Scheme is dependent on the cooperation
and agreement of all Parties. Each Party shall be individually accountable to
the others for the effective delivery of such work and responsibility for any subcontractors
shall rest with the individual Parties who sub-contract the performance of
their obligations under this Agreement.
5

6. INDEMNITY FOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS
In the event of any successful claim in respect of any debt, liability, breach of contract,
act or omission pursuant to the Scheme or any Project being made by a third party
against all or any of the Parties (“Third Party Claim”), the Party whose act or omission
caused the Third Party Claim (by virtue of that Party incurring a debt, liability or that
Party’s negligence, breach of contract, act or omission or otherwise), shall indemnify
each and every other Party against any liability, costs, claims and expenses arising out of
such Third Party Claim.
7. DURATION OF THE SCHEME
7.1 The Scheme shall commence on the date of signature of this Agreement and shall
continue for the Initial Period. Following the Initial Period this Agreement shall
continue unless notice is served by any party in accordance with clause 7.3 below.
7.2 It is agreed between the parties that for the duration of this Agreement the Scheme
shall conform to HLF’s reporting obligations.
7.3 Following the Initial Period if any Party wishes to terminate this Agreement, it must
serve upon each and every Party notice of its intention to terminate. Such notice must
specify the date of termination which will be a date no less than three months following
the service of the notice.
8. SCHEME MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
8.1 The Scheme will be overseen and monitored by the Steering Group which may include
but not be limited to representation from local associations and the voluntary sector.
8.2 For the avoidance of doubt all actions and decisions made by the Steering Group shall
be subject to the overriding need to manage the Scheme in accordance with the
Standard Terms of Grant and any decision inconsistent with such obligations, as
6

determined by The Accountable Body acting reasonably and in good faith (in
consultation with HLF as necessary), will be invalid and shall not be binding upon or
enforceable against the Parties.
8.3 Applications for grants will be assessed by a panel with specialised knowledge, skills and
expertise. The panel will be drawn from the Steering Group and made up of noninterested
parties.
8.4 The Accountable Body shall have responsibility for major operational aspects of the
Scheme and will report to the Steering Group no less often than on a quarterly basis.
The work includes designing and submitting to the Steering Group an operational plan
which sets out milestones, targets and reporting procedures for the duration of the
Scheme.
9. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
9.1 The Accountable Body is responsible to HLF for providing the following support to the
Scheme:
9.1.1 Administering a separate financial cost centre;
9.1.2 Ensuring that Delivery Agents adhere to HLF Standard Terms of Grant in accordance
with Appendix 1 when delivering or sub-contracting implementation of project activities
and proposals as appropriate;
9.1.3 Securing, establishing, and operating appropriate financial management procedures;
9.1.4 Supervising management of audit procedures;
9.1.5 Any other duties from time to time, which the Parties deem appropriate for the
Accountable Body to carry out or which is imposed upon the Accountable Body by HLF.
7

9.2 All Parties shall
9.2.1 implement their individual Projects according to the terms of the Project Plan. For the
avoidance of doubt, the Project Plan may be amended by the Steering Group from time
to time provided always that all parties to this Agreement are notified of any such
changes. Where there are a range of parties (and/or contractors) the Parties are
responsible for coordinating and ensuring they deliver their work to the required
standards and to the agreed budget and timescales;
9.2.2 ensure that the Project conforms to the Project Plans and ensure that any anticipated or
actual variance in the cost, timescale or quality of agreed Project outputs is reported to
the Accountable Body immediately;
9.2.3 ensure all claims for payment against eligible Project expenditure should be submitted
to the Accountable Body by specified quarterly deadlines, supported by the prescribed
documentation;
9.2.4 pass adequate records to the Accountable Body for audit and monitoring purposes;
9.2.5 ensure that no capital works are carried out on land or property until they have
acquired all necessary consents and permissions, and have consulted and complied with
the regulatory requirements of the Environment Agency, the relevant local authority
and any other relevant bodies;
9.2.6 ensure that capital works carried out on their land are completed to the standards set
out in the specifications to the Scheme or to such other appropriate standards as are
agreed with the Steering Group before the commencement of the work.
9.3 Each Party shall be responsible for the provision of all the necessary personnel,
insurance, accommodation and services required for the implementation of their
specific Project. Each Party shall exercise proper financial control for the disbursement
of all monies and use of funds related to the Scheme and shall administer their Project
according to the Standard Terms of Grant.
8

10. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
10.1 Each Party shall indemnify The Accountable Body against any compensation or action
for damages which have occurred to The Accountable Body arising out of, or in the
course of those elements of the Scheme which that Delivery Agent is responsible for
delivery, unless the compensation or action for damages is due to any negligent act or
omission on the part of The Accountable Body or their respective employees, agents or
servants.
10.2 It is agreed between the Parties that each Party shall indemnify the Accountable Body in
full against any liability of the Accountable Body to repay the HLF all or any of the Grant
Monies.
10.3 During the term of this Agreement and for a period of 6 years thereafter, each Party
shall maintain in force, with a reputable insurance company, professional indemnity
insurance in an amount not less than £1,000,000 (1 million pounds) and public liability
insurance in an amount not less than £5,000,000 (five million pounds) and shall, on the
Accountable Body's request, produce both insurance certificates and the receipt of the
current year's premium.
10.4 The provisions of this clause 10 shall survive termination of this agreement, however
arising.
11. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
11.1 The Accountable Body shall oversee the financial management of the Scheme and the
Parties shall provide financial information as required by the Accountable Body to fulfil
the needs of the grant claim process.
11.2 All financial statements will be in a format to be agreed with the Accountable Body and
will be in accordance with the Standard Terms of Grant and the Scheme’s requirements,
if any.
9

11.3 The Accountable Body will submit the Scheme’s returns to HLF for reimbursement of
funds. The Accountable Body will provide financial information as reasonably required
for their own auditing or other purposes associated with their own financial
management.
11.4 On completion or termination of the Scheme, use of any remaining funds will be
determined by the Steering Group taking into account the aims and objectives of the
Scheme.
11.5 Individual Parties are responsible for ensuring, within their own organisation, an audit
trail, taking account of their own auditing processes, is compatible with Standard Terms
of Grant or with the requirements of the Accountable Body.
11.6 If HLF requires justifiable repayment of all or any of the funds the Steering Group shall
agree the basis on which such repayments should be made. Where this requirement
arises because of the failure of an individual Party or Parties to deliver their Project, that
Party shall pay the uncommitted funds directly to HLF.
11.7 If it appears that there is or may be a shortfall in funding for any reason, which may
result in a change to the Scheme, the Steering Group will endeavour to secure
alternative funding and will inform HLF and obtain its approval for any changes.
11.8 Each Party shall supply as soon as reasonably practicable all financial documents,
insurance details and information properly required under the Standard Terms of Grant
to the Accountable Body.
11.9 Any non recoverable VAT incurred on chargeable expenditure commissioned by the
Parties in the delivery of Projects will be included within claims submitted for
reimbursement by the Accountable Body. Non recoverable VAT will form part of the
contract value and is not additional to the contract value.
10

12. ASSIGNMENT AND SUB-CONTRACTING
12.1 Sub-contracting any part of the Scheme will not relieve a Party of any obligation or duty
attributable to them under this Agreement.
12.2 Where a Party sub-contracts their Project to third parties or places orders in connection
with the implementation of the Project, it shall procure that the third party complies
with the terms of this Agreement and obtain an indemnity from the third party covering
as a minimum all of the sub-contracting Party's rights and obligations under this
Agreement.
13. FUNDING AND PAYMENT
13.1 Each Party shall provide to the Accountable Body all receipts and paid invoices in
respect of any expenses or costs incurred by them as a result of the Project.
13.2 The Accountable Body shall then apply to HLF in respect of the Party's costs and
provided that HLF agree to pay such costs, the Accountable Body shall transfer the
relevant part of the Grant Monies to the Party and such transfer shall be effected within
seven days of the Accountable Body having received cleared funds from HLF.
13.3 It is agreed between the parties that all payments made to the Parties under this
Agreement shall be pre-approved by the Accountable Body in its absolute discretion.
14. PUBLICITY
Any press releases or other public statements about the Scheme will only be issued in
accordance with this Agreement and the procedures agreed by the Steering Group. The
Parties agree that, in conducting the Scheme and in publicising its work, full recognition
will be given to the support of each contributing party, including HLF.
11

15. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE
15.1 In the event that the Parties dispute any matter relating to the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape and that dispute is not reconciled with the Accountable Body, the dispute
shall be referred to the Steering Group for resolution, who shall use all reasonable
endeavours to agree in good faith to a resolution of the dispute within 21 days of the
reference to them.
15.2 In the event that the Steering Group cannot agree to resolve any dispute referred to
them pursuant to Clause 15.1 within the timescale referred to therein or within such
longer period as they may agree, any Party may refer the dispute to the arbitration of a
single arbitrator conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Act 1996 for the time
being appointed with the agreement of all the Parties or, in default of agreement,
appointed on the request of any party by the President for the time being of the
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
16. TERMINATION OF THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SCHEME STEERING
GROUP
The Accountable Body acting reasonably and in good faith shall be entitled to determine
that a material breach of an essential term of this Agreement has been committed by a
Party without reasonable cause. The Accountable Body shall write to the Party
requesting that such breach be remedied within such reasonable time as may be
specified in writing by the Accountable Body. If the breach is not remedied the Steering
Group shall meet to consider the alleged breach and shall be entitled, but not bound, to
terminate the involvement of the Party concerned, without prejudice to their rights and
to enforce any obligations outstanding, including making payment of any outstanding
contributions.
17. NO PARTNERSHIP
For the avoidance of doubt it is expressly stated that the entering of this Agreement
does not constitute a legal partnership amongst the Parties.
12

18. COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in a number of counterparts and by the Parties to it
on separate counterparts each of which when executed and delivered will be an
original.
19. LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and
the Parties irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts in
respect of any dispute or matter arising out of or connected with this Agreement.
20. NEW PARTIES
Other persons or organisations may become Parties to this Agreement. All references to
Parties or Party in this Agreement shall include all such persons or organisations.
21. CONFIDENTIALITY
21.1 Each Party shall treat as confidential all confidential information obtained from the
Accountable Body under or in connection with this agreement and shall not disclose
such confidential information other than to persons identified by the Parties as able to
receive such information or as otherwise required by law and shall not use any
confidential information otherwise than for the purposes of the agreement.
21.2 Each Party shall take all necessary precautions to ensure that all confidential
information obtained under or in connection with this agreement is given to each
member of staff and/or to any third party only to the extent necessary for that member
of staff and/or that third party's activities in relation to the interpretation and execution
of this agreement and is treated as confidential and not disclosed (without prior
13

approval of the Accountable Body) or used by any member of staff or third party
otherwise than for the purposes of this agreement. Where confidential information
that is stored or recorded by whatever means is eventually disposed of, it must be
disposed of in such a way as to retain the confidentiality required under this agreement
21.3 the provisions of this clause shall not apply to any information which is or becomes
public knowledge (otherwise than by breach of this clause 21.3) which was in the
possession of any Party without restriction as to its disclosure before receiving it from
the Accountable Body which is received from a third party who lawfully acquired it and
who is under no obligation restricting its disclosure.
21.4 On termination of this agreement (for whatever reason) each Party shall return to the
Accountable Body any confidential information (without retaining copies thereof)
provided solely for the purposes of this agreement. Each Party shall ensure that any
parties it deals with or who are engaged by it for provision of services in connection
with this agreement, shall have similar commitments as in the present clause in their
appointments.
14

This Agreement has been signed by the parties
Delivery Partner Signature
SRWT Representative Signature
[SIGNATURE CLAUSES TO BE ADDED LATER]
Landscape App
15

Landscape Partnerships
(Supplied by HLF 07/03/2018)
Grants from £100,000 to £3,000,000
Standard terms of grant
Definitions:
APPENDIX ONE
Landscape Partnerships
Heritage Lottery Fund Standard Terms of Grant
‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’ – the Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund (who administer the Heritage
Lottery Fund).
‘you’, ‘your’ – the organisation(s) awarded the Grant as set out in the Grant Notification Letter.
Application – any documents or information you send us to support your request for a grant, or
submit to us from your Development Work.
Approved Purposes – the purposes for which you have applied for the Grant and how you or others
(‘a Third Party’ or ‘Third Parties’) intend to carry out those purposes as set out in your Application,
but taking account of
a. any changes to the list of Landscape Partnership Programmes or other purposes we and
you have agreed in writing up to the date of our decision to award you the Grant, and any
changes that we tell you about in the grant Notification Letter; and
b. any changes to the list of projects you sent with your Application which may be amended
from time to time without written approval beforehand. Approved Purposes include you
getting and using partnership funding as set out in your Application.
Approved Usage – how you said you would use Your Property in your Application (allowing for any
changes that we may have agreed up to the release of any of the Grant).
Development Work – the work involved in progressing your Scheme to your second-round
submission,
including the production of designs, plans, and other documents.
Digital Outputs – all material with heritage content created in or copied into a digital format by or
for you in connection with the Scheme.
Evaluation Report – the report you must send us before we pay the last 10% of the Grant telling the
story of the Scheme, its achievements and lessons learned.
16

First-Round Pass Letter - our letter confirming that you can proceed to the second-round. This will
identify any Development Work you need to do before you send in a second-round submission
Grant – the amount set out in the Grant Notification Letter.
Grant Expiry Date – the date by which you must achieve the Approved Purposes as set out in the
Grant Notification Letter and by which you will make the final drawdown of the Grant.
How to acknowledge your grant - the booklet that explains how we require you to acknowledge the
Grant and which gives details of the acknowledgement materials we will provide.
Photography of HLF-funded projects: A guide for grantees – guidance on how to submit images to
us, how we use these, and how to source consents.
Programme Application guidance – the document setting out the scope of the programme and how
to apply.
Receiving a grant – the guidance we publish to explain how we will pay the Grant, monitor the
Scheme and agree any changes to the Grant.
Scheme – the landscape partnership scheme referred to in your Application that consists of, or
includes, the Approved Purposes.
Scheme Completion Date – the date that we make our final payment and are satisfied that the
Approved Purposes of the Grant have been met.
Third Party – anybody (other than you) who owns or controls property listed in the Application
Third-Party Contract – a contract that you enter into with a Third Party in line with paragraph 27 (c)
of this Contract.
Third-Party Property – any property identified in the Application that belongs to or is controlled by a
Third Party.
Your Property – any property that you buy, create, receive or restore that is funded by the Grant
including Digital properties, intellectual property rights (if any) and any documents that you produce
or order as part of the Approved Purposes.
Achieving the Approved Purposes
1. You must use the Grant only for the Approved Purposes, unless you get our approval
beforehand.
2. You must not start work to achieve the Approved Purposes without our approval
beforehand.
3. You must achieve the Approved Purposes and make your final Grant drawdown by the
Grant Expiry Date.
4. You must use Your Property, or allow it to be used, only for the Approved Usage.
17

5. As well as these terms of grant, you must follow the conditions (if any) set out in the First-
Round Pass Letter and Grant Notification Letter, address any issues we identify in the course
of monitoring, and meet the requirements set out in the Programme Application guidance,
Receiving a grant, the How to acknowledge your grant guidance, and Photography of HLFfunded
projects: A guide for grantees.
6. You must carry out the Approved Purposes in line with current best practice in your area
of heritage and to a standard that is appropriate to a project of importance to the national
heritage. You must follow all legislation and regulations that apply.
Scheme development
7. The First-Round Pass Letter may offer to provide you with funding for Development Work.
If it does these terms of grant will also apply to that funding but with the following changes:
a. when they refer to “Approved Purposes” this means your Development Work.
b. when they refer to “Approved Usage” this means you using the product of the
Development work to further the Scheme.
c. when they refer to a “Grant Expiry Date” this is the date set out in the First-Round Pass
Letter by which you must complete the Development Work.
d. when they refer to “Grant” this means the amount of funding for the Development Work
set out in the First-Round Pass Letter.
e. when paragraphs 5 and 43 refer to the “Grant Notification Letter” this means the First-
Round Pass Letter.
f. paragraphs 9a, 9c, 16, 17 and 18 will not apply.
Monitoring the Scheme
8. You must give us any financial or other information and records we may need from time
to time on the Grant, Your Property, Third Party Property, the Approved Purposes (and
achieving them) and the Approved Usage.
9. You must allow us (or anyone we authorise) to have any access we may need to:
a. inspect Your Property, Third Party Property and any work to Your Property or Third Party
Property;
b. monitor the conduct and progress of the Approved Purposes; and
c. monitor the Approved Usage.
In these cases we will give you notice. You will report on the progress of the Scheme at times
agreed with us.
10. We may ask you to provide proof that you have taken action to reduce the risk of fraud.
We may ask you to let us examine your accounting processes and procedures to check the
effectiveness of your anti-fraud measures.
11. We will monitor the progress of the Scheme and will carry out checks at and after
completion of the Scheme to confirm that it is delivering the outcomes expected. If we (or
18

anyone we authorise) make any recommendations on the matters set out in paragraph 9,
you must take those recommendations into account when meeting your obligations to us.
12. You must take appropriate steps to monitor your own success in achieving the Approved
Purposes and in using Your Property for the Approved Usage. On completing the Scheme,
you must submit your Evaluation Report before we will release the final Grant payment.
Procurement
13. Before you or a Third Party start any phase of the work needed to achieve the Approved
Purposes, you or a Third Party must put in place all necessary contracts with appropriately
qualified contractors and professional advisers to allow you or a Third Party to finish that
phase of the work. Works contracts must contain a clause which allows you to retain part of
the contractors’ fees on practical completion of the works. If you or a Third Party want any
contracts to be on different terms, you must get our approval beforehand.
14. If the Approved Purposes involve buying goods or services or getting work done, you
must carry out a tendering exercise in line with the requirements set out in the Programme
Application guidance.
Your Property
15. If you use any of the Grant yourself to buy, receive, create, restore, conserve or
otherwise fund Your Property, you must continue to own it and keep exclusive control over
what happens to it. You must not sell, let or otherwise part with it or any interest in it, or
give any rights over it to anyone else (or take any steps to do so) without our approval
beforehand. If we give you our approval, it may depend on any of the following
requirements.
a. that you pay us a share of the net proceeds of selling or letting Your Property within one
month of parting with the assets or other goods;
b. that you sell or let Your Property at its full market value;
c. any other conditions we think fit.
16. You must maintain Your Property in good repair and condition. If the Approved Purposes
include creating, repairing or restoring Your Property, you must maintain it in good repair
and condition after the work has been done. You must maintain, manage or conserve Your
Property in accordance with the version of the landscape conservation action plan that we
have approved.
17. You must insure or procure the insurance of any works undertaken as part of the Scheme
on Your Property under a contractors’ all risks insurance policy
18. You must keep any objects or fixtures (if any) that form part of Your Property in a
physically secure and appropriate environment.
19. You must tell us, in writing, within five working days about any significant damage to
Your Property.
20. You must arrange for the general public to have appropriate access to Your Property.
You must make sure that no person is unreasonably denied access to Your Property.
Publicity and acknowledgement
19

21. We may make the purpose and amount of the Grant public in whatever way we think fit.
22. Once we have announced the Grant, you must acknowledge the Grant publicly in line
with the requirements set out in our How to acknowledge your grant booklet. You must
meet any other acknowledgement or publicity requirements we may tell you about from
time to time. Before we make any public announcement of the Grant, you must not issue
any public statement, press release or other publicity in relation to the Grant or which refers
to us, other than in a form we have approved beforehand.
23. You must also provide us with digital images in electronic format of your Scheme – or
hard-copy photographs or transparencies. You give us the right to use those you provide us
with at any time, including putting them into a digital format and altering them. You must
get all the permissions required for you and us to make use of them before you use them or
send them to us. See Photography of HLF-funded projects: A guide for grantees for more
information.
Digital outputs
24. You agree to:
a. hereby grant to us an irrevocable, perpetual and royalty-free licence to use, copy, keep
and disseminate the Digital Outputs as we see fit and to grant sub-licences of the same kind;
b. obtain and maintain in force all authorisations of any kind required for you to use, copy,
keep and disseminate the Digital Outputs and to grant such licence to us;
c. contract to the effect that any creation by you or on your behalf of material which forms
Digital Outputs is undertaken on terms that either the copyright in the digital material is
assigned to you or that the copyright owner may not commercially exploit it;
d. ensure that the Digital Outputs are kept up-to-date, function as intended and do not
become obsolescent before the fifth anniversary of the Scheme Completion Date;
e. comply with these terms of grant in relation to the digital files that make up the Digital
Outputs for the period agreed in the Grant Notification Letter. For the avoidance of doubt,
this includes ensuring that the digital files are held securely and are available on request to
the public and to us;
f. grant licences in respect of the Digital Outputs under the Creative Commons model licence
Attribution Non-Commercial but not on other terms without our prior written consent;
g. not otherwise exploit the Digital Outputs commercially without our prior written consent.
Grant payment and repayment
25. We will, up to the Grant Expiry Date, pay you the Grant or any instalment of it in line
with these terms of grant and the procedures explained in Receiving a grant as long as:
a. the National Lottery continues to operate under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 (as
amended from time to time), and enough funds are made available to us under the Act; and
b. we are satisfied that you or a Third Party are achieving (and will continue to achieve) or
have achieved the Approved Purposes in line with these terms of grant and that you are
20

spending the Grant in proportion to any other funds you receive from other sources for the
Approved Purposes.
c. the total amount of the Grant you have received is not more than the total of the annual
cash flow projection (as set out in the Application) up to the date on which you ask for an
instalment of the Grant.
26. You acknowledge that the Grant is the total amount of funds we will provide and will not
be increased as the result of you overspending or for any other reason.
Third Party Contracts
27. If the Approved Purposes involve a Third Party using part of the Grant to buy, receive,
create, restore, conserve or otherwise fund Third-Party Property’, we will only pay you that
part of the Grant on the conditions set out in Receiving a grant guidance and if:
a. you have sent us any details of the Third Party and of the Third-Party Property that we
need to see and approve in line with Receiving a grant;
b. no work or alterations have been carried out to the Third-Party Property’ since you
included it in the Application, which you believe make it less valuable as a heritage asset;
and
c. the Third Party has entered into a Third-Party contract with you that allows you to enforce
against the Third Party, in relation to their Third-Party Property and the part of the Grant
you have set aside for them, terms that are no less strict than these terms of grant.
28. If a Third Party breaks any of the terms of its Third-Party Contract, you must, unless we
agree otherwise, take all reasonable steps to enforce those terms and recover any money
they owe you as a result. You must pay us a share of any money you recover from a Third
Party. You must work out the share in line with Receiving a grant. You must pay us this
money immediately.
29. If we tell you in writing, you must allow us to take over and carry forward for our own
benefit any proceedings against a Third Party. You must also make sure that all Third -Party
Contracts allow for this to happen. If we tell you, you must transfer to us any rights that you
may have as a result of a Third-Party Contract being broken.
30. You must not use any part of the Grant towards work on Your Property or Third-Party
Property without getting our written permission beforehand if that part of the Grant has
been identified in the Grant Notification Letter as one which you must refer to us before you
offer it.
31. Unless we agree otherwise, you must make sure (in a way that can be enforced in law)
that anyone who buys or receives Third-Party Property from a Third Party:
a. insures the Third-Party Property up to an amount and against such risks as is reasonable
and appropriate in all the relevant circumstances;
b. maintains the Third-Party Property’s character and appearance, bearing in mind the area
it is based in;
c. keeps to any other conditions we say must be followed before the Third-Party Property is
sold; and
d. repays you in line with the conditions of Receiving a grant for repaying the Grant.
21

32. You must take all reasonable steps to monitor and, unless we agree otherwise:
a. enforce against anyone who buys or receives Third-Party Property from a Third Party the
conditions referred to in paragraph 31 a), b) and c) above;
b. recover any amounts owed to you in connection with paragraph 31 d); and
c. pay us a share of any amount you recover. You must work out this share in the same way
as under paragraph 28 of these terms of grant.
33. You must repay to us immediately any Grant that we have paid you (and we will stop any
future instalments of the Grant) if:
a. you no longer operate, or you are declared bankrupt or placed into receivership or
liquidation;
b. you have, in our opinion, given us fraudulent, incorrect or misleading information;
c. you have acted negligently in any significant matter or fraudulently in connection with the
Approved Purposes or the Approved Usage;
d. any competent authority directs the repayment of the Grant;
e. there is a significant change in your status;
f. you knowingly withhold information that is relevant to the content of your Application; or
g. you fail to keep to any of these terms of grant.
34. If you achieve the Approved Purposes without spending the full amount of the Grant,
you must pay back the part of the Grant you have not spent. We will treat you as spending
the Grant in proportion to other funds you were due to receive from other sources for the
Approved Purposes.
35. If you sell or otherwise part with all or part of Your Property without our permission
under paragraph 15, or you receive money in some other way as a result of you not
following these terms of grant, you may have to pay us immediately a share of the net
proceeds if that share is more than the amount we would otherwise be entitled to under
paragraph 33.
General terms
36. You may not, and must not claim to, transfer the Grant or any rights under these terms
of grant.
37. You must take all steps and sign and date any documents as may be necessary to carry
out your obligations under these terms of grant and to give us the rights granted to us under
them.
38. If there is more than one of you, any liability under these terms of grant will apply to you
all together and separately.
22

39. We may rely on any of our rights under these terms of grant at any time, even if we do
not always choose to do so immediately. If we decide not to rely on one right, we may still
rely on any of our other rights under these terms of grant.
40. If you need our approval for anything, you must write to us to ask for it. You may only
rely on any approval needed under these terms of grant if we (or anyone we authorise) give
it to you in writing.
41. Any notice, request or other document we or you send to each other under these terms
of grant can be delivered or sent by any effective means.
42. Any documents you need to send us under these terms of grant are for our own
purposes only. If we approve or accept any documents, this does not mean that we have
approved or accepted them for any other purpose.
43. These terms of grant will last for the period set out in the Grant Notification Letter.
44. These terms of grant cannot be enforced by anybody other than you or us.
45. We may stop funding in line with these terms of grant if, within two years of the date of
the Grant Notification Letter, you have not spent at least 20% of the Grant.
46. If we stop funding in line with paragraph 45, you may still claim amounts you have
offered to Third Parties but have not yet paid them at the date we stop funding. You may
also claim any amounts we agree should still be available for you to carry out work to The
Property.
47. If we stop funding under paragraph 45, you must (if we ask you to) transfer any Third-
Party Contracts to us or to someone we choose.
23

Appendix 3
Landscape Character
Assessment

1. INTRODUCTION
SHEFFIELD LAKELAND: STATEMENT OF LANDSCAPE SIGNIFICANCE
The Sheffield Lakeland Project Area Landscape
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape lies between the vibrant city of Sheffield and the internationally
important moorland of the Peak District National Park.
The boundary stretches from Langsett Reservoir and the Little Don valley in the north, to Redmires
Reservoirs and the Rivelin valley in the south.
In the west the boundary runs from the moorland slopes and watershed up to the River Don valley and
follows the river through the urban fringe of Sheffield in the east.
The Partnership area encompasses the towns and villages of High Bradfield, Low Bradfield, Dungworth,
Stocksbridge, Deepcar, Wharncliffe Side, Oughtibridge, Bolsterstone, Midhopestones, Worrall, Loxley
and Stannington.
In the 1950s, a Sheffield bus company, drawing inspiration from the numerous reservoirs which define
the area, established tours to visit the “Sheffield Lakeland”. Appreciating the boldness of that vision we
have brought the name “Sheffield Lakeland” back to life through the Partnership.
This is a special – and unique area – and this statement seeks to identify, assess and map its special
character and qualities.
The Sheffield Lakeland Project Area (and National Park boundary) are shown on Plan 1.
Why is Sheffield Lakeland so special?
This area of North West Sheffield is an outstanding example of a living landscape, rich in history, with
diverse habitats abundant in wildlife, vibrant communities and strong traditions.
It is dominated by a fast flowing rivers which rise off the moors and tumble through steep sided valleys
to meet up at the city of Sheffield. They powered the early years of the industrial revolution, and the
reservoirs they feed now provide drinking water for the city’s growing population and much-loved
places for recreation.
The area is home to approximately 30,000 people and is a productive, working landscape with
traditional farming, forestry and sporting interests alongside extractive and heavy engineering and
manufacturing industries.
The layers of human interaction in the landscape have left behind Bronze Age earth-works, pack horse
bridges and mileposts, historic inns, cruck barns and a lattice of dry stone walls. The civil engineering
triumph of the reservoirs adds its own distinctive Victorian Gothic vernacular to the landscape.
Over half of the project area falls within the Peak District National Park and the western margin includes
the Dark Peak Site of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protected Area and Special Area of

Conservation. The area, therefore, represents a valuable buffer between the protected habitats and
Sheffield's urban fringe.
Sheffield Lakeland Project Outcomes and key projects relevant to landscape
Outcome 1: A more connected and resilient landscape
Outcome 2: Bigger, better and more joined up natural environment for people and wildlife
Outcome 3: Better recorded and valued cultural heritage celebrated by local people and visitors
Outcome 4: A better understanding off the local heritage with more people helping to look after it
These Outcomes and projects are described in more detail in the Landscape Conservation Action Plan.
The purpose of this statement
The purpose of this document is to provide an evidence base to (a) define and justify how and why the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape is special and (b) link projects to the sense of place and management
priorities for the landscapes of the Sheffield Lakeland.
This statement will:
• Identify and provide reliable evidence of the spatial characteristics of landscape in the
Sheffield Lakeland project area;
• Identify the overall landscape objective for each LCT and a set of priorities and actions to
achieve the overall aim
• It will spatially link the project outcomes to the character of the landscape and identify the
connections between those outcomes / projects and the areas of distinct character within the
Sheffield Lakeland project boundary.
• Enable the priority of future individual development proposals to be evaluated based on an
understanding of the key characteristics, sense of place and management objectives for the
landscape.
What is landscape?
In 2006 the United Kingdom signed up to the European Landscape Convention (ELC). The ELC provides a
useful definition of landscape as ‘an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the
action and interaction of natural and/or human factors’. This recognises that landscape is important, not
as just scenery or a backdrop, but because it links culture with nature, and past with present. Landscape
has many values not all of them tangible; it matters to, and is valued by, people and provides a context
for people’s lives. (Guidelines for implementing the ELC Pt 1, Natural England 2009 para 2.5)
Landscapes vary because of many variables (including underlying geology, soils, topography, land cover,
hydrology, historic and cultural development, and climatic considerations) and the combination of
characteristics arising from these influences, and their often complex interrelationships, makes one
landscape different from another.

Landscape character may be defined as a distinct and recognisable pattern of elements, or
characteristics, in the landscape that make one landscape different from another (An approach to LCA,
NE October 2014).
Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) is the process of identifying, classifying and describing this
variation in the character of the landscape.
The process of Landscape Character Assessment has an important role to play in managing and guiding
change by establishing a robust evidence base linked to place and presenting a holistic approach at a
landscape scale (rather than focusing on special or protected sites or features) and forming an agreed
spatial framework of landscape character types to which different policy options and decision-making
can be applied.
Current good practice guidance on the approach to landscape character assessment is set out in:
• Natural England (2014) An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment.
• Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2002) Landscape Character Assessment:
Guidance for England and Scotland.
• Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage (2004) Topic Paper 6: Techniques and criteria
for judging landscape sensitivity and capacity
The Peak District National Park Landscape Strategy
In 2009 the Peak District National Park Authority produced a Landscape Strategy and Action Plan (for the
period 2009 – 2019). This strategy assessed the whole National Park Landscape and sub-divided the Park
landscape into large Character Areas (White Peak, Dark Peak, Eastern Moors etc) and smaller, more
detailed ‘Landscape Character Types’ (such as Enclosed Gritstone Uplands, Slopes and Valleys with
Woodland etc).
Within this document, the Sheffield Lakeland project Area is primarily located within the Dark Peak
Yorkshire Fringe Character Area, (plus small sections within the Dark Peak & Eastern Moors) with a mix
of Landscape Character Types (Moorland Slopes & Cloughs, Enclosed Gritstone Upland, Slopes and
Valleys with Woodland and Urban).
The Landscape strategy also defines Management Guidelines (defined as Protect, Manage & Plan) to
guide the process of ongoing landscape change.
The Landscape Character Types as defined by this Landscape Strategy are shown in Plan 2. Delete this
2. METHODOLOGY
Landscape Character Assessment methodology for the Sheffield Lakeland Project Area
The landscape of the Sheffield Lakeland project area is not one area of consistent character – it is made
up of numerous landscape types, all with their own sense of place, special qualities and management /
enhancement needs and opportunities. The Sheffield Lakeland outcomes and projects need to respond
to and address this spatial diversity of landscape character.

The Peak District Landscape Strategy (which defines separate character areas within the Park) has been
taken as the starting point of this assessment. A number of questions have been asked to determine if
the approach used in this large-scale strategy are appropriate for this smaller (and more detailed) study
area.
Within the Sheffield Lakeland project area, the landscape has been divided into a series of distinct
Landscape Character Types (LCTs) by the Landscape Strategy.
1. Is the spatial division of the landscape on the basis of ‘Landscape Character Types’ relevant at
this scale of assessment or should smaller, more detailed areas be used?
We feel that the sub-division of the landscape into areas that share specific landscape elements
and character is appropriate for this scale of landscape assessment.
2. Are the boundaries of the ‘Landscape Character Types’ as defined within the Landscape
Strategy accurate at a greater level of detail / smaller scale?
We feel that they are not , so revised ‘Landscape Character Types’ boundaries for areas within
the Sheffield Lakeland project area have been determined by desktop and site assessment.
These LCTs will be mapped and landscape character assessments will be carried out for each. A
photographic survey will be undertaken….
A field survey was undertaken to add spatial detail to the LCT assessment.
3. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TYPES
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Character Types
‘Landscape Character Types’ are spatial areas that share both landscape elements (drystone walls,
pasture fields, undulating slopes, blocks of woodland etc) and overall character.
It is important that they are accurately mapped to enable projects to be identified and (a) linked to the
special qualities of the Sheffield Lakeland; (b) overall management objectives; and (c) to enable a
landscape concept to be identified for the area.
The revised ‘Landscape Character Types’ are shown on Plan 1. Comparing this plan to that prepared as
part of the Peak District Landscape Strategy, it can be seen that Enclosed Gritstone Upland forms a
larger element of the landscape, with Slopes and Valleys with Woodland forming more ‘finger-like’
patterns leading from the developed land into the surrounding moorland. These valleys are dominant
features (which contrast with some of the higher plateau landscapes) which contain the network of
reservoirs and link the urban areas to the east with the moorlands to the west.
The individual character types identified as being present within the Sheffield Lakeland project area
include:

• Enclosed Gritstone Uplands: Permanent pasture and rough grazing enclosed by gritstone walls
on rolling uplands above the river valleys and reservoirs with remnant patches (some of which
are extensive) of rough land with bracken, gorse, heather & bilberry.
• Slopes and Valleys with woodlands: Sloping valley side landform running east – west which
contain the ‘necklace’ of reservoirs with dramatic gritstone edges (such as Rivelin Rocks)
characterising the tops of some of the steeper valley slopes. Landcover is predominantly small
(often regular) pasture fields enclosed by hedges and gritstone walls with blocks of woodland.
• Moorland, Moorland Slopes & Cloughs: Slopes and cloughs rising to areas of moorland plateau
with some prominent gritstone outcrops (such as Gibraltar Rocks). Landcover is dominated by
rough acid grassland, bracken and heather moorland with some relic areas of oak-birch
woodland in cloughs. This character type often forms the backdrop to views within the Sheffield
Lakeland area.
• Developed: this is a new category which has a wider definition than the previous category
(which was known as ‘urban’ in the Peak District Landscape Strategy). This includes residential
areas, but also associated infrastructure and other uses where the nature of the landscape has
been significantly altered such as golf courses, cemeteries and land associated with road
corridors or other forms of development.
Detailed character assessment sheets for each of these Landscape Character Types have been
produced.
These include:
an assessment of the landscapes character and its sense of place;
landform & elements;
settlement pattern;
its ecological & cultural integrity and pattern;
its aesthetic and perceptual qualities;
its key visual attractors & detractors, key views in / out and inter-visibility with adjacent areas; and
enhancement opportunities and links to Sheffield Lakeland Partnership project outcomes
These are included in Appendix 1.
Photographic viewpoints
Plan 3 also includes photographic viewpoint locations delete and refer to appendix 2– these help
identify elements of character and these viewpoints can be used throughout the life of the project to
monitor and define landscape change. The photographs are included in Appendix 2.

4. LANDSCAPE SURVEY
In addition to identifying Landscape Character Type boundaries (which are less general - and therefore
more accurate – relative to the smaller landscape area than those produced as part of the Peak District
Landscape Strategy), survey work was undertaken to identify:
• Reservoirs, streams and wetlands: water is one of the key defining elements of the Sheffield
Lakeland project area
• Cultural Heritage features (Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation
Areas): the area has numerous features that contribute to its current character and provide a
sense of ‘time depth’
• Ecological sites (Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Sheffield Wildlife Trust Sites and Priority
Habitat Inventory areas): linking and enhancing these sites is a priority project for enhancing
landscape character. Where specific landscape types (such as areas of moorland) within
different character types were identified, these have been included on the plan.
• Footpaths and access routes: the key means of linking people to the landscape and specific
areas of interest within the Lakeland project area.
• Key viewpoints: where panoramic views of the landscape and key elements of character – such
as Reservoirs - can be experienced)
• ‘Degraded’ landscapes (areas where landscape elements - such as the integrity and condition of
dry stone walls- and strength of character has been eroded): restoring character, landscape
elements and small areas of habitat is a priority for these areas.
This survey information is shown on Plan 4 change to plan 2.

5. LANDSCAPE STRATEGY
Based on this assessment work, a concept plan for landscape within the Sheffield Lakeland landscape
has been produced, which is shown at Plan 5.
This shows:
Existing woodland to diversify
Existing heath/moorland to manage
Existing access points from settlement areas and routes through the landscape
Designated areas including SSSIs, Conservation Areas, SAMS and YWT nature reserves
The purpose of this concept plan is to provide a framework (which is based on a solid evidence base) to
identify, prioritise and deliver landscape projects as part of the Sheffield Lakeland Project Heritage
Lottery Fund stage 2 bid.
The concept plan illustrates the aim of the Sheffield Lakeland landscape strategy, which are to:
(a) identify the spatial location of landscape projects which either restore landscape character (where it
is degraded) or build and strengthen existing character; and
(b) connect people to the landscape – to enable the celebration of the unique features of this special
landscape and facilitate a greater understanding of the process that have shaped it in the past and will
continue to do so in the future.
The concept plan shows:
key routes to promote and enhance to link people to key elements of the landscape
Key habitat linkages
Areas of the landscape where the aim is to restore and enhance character (such as drystone
walls – restoring the lattice)

Drawn by:
Date:
Drawing No:
Scale:
Meetham Rob
01 November 2017
1:56500 at A3
Title:
6 Lines Maximum!
Plan 1: Sheffield Lakeland - Landscape Character Types in
the Sheffield Lakeland

KEY
PROMINENT AREAS
OF HEATH / MOOR
PROMINENT
LANDSCAPE EDGE
KEY SETTLEMENT
SSSI
PROMINENT CONIFEROUS
PLANTATION BLOCKS
PROMINENT LANDSCAPE
AREAS WITH LOSS / EROSION
OF KEY FEATURES (INCLUDING
DRY STONE WALLS)
KEY RESERVOIR VIEW
PROMINENT
URBAN EDGE
AREAS WITH LOSS
OF DRY STONE WALLS
PROMINENT STRUCTURE:
BOOTS FOLLY
NATURE RESERVES
INDUSTRIAL AREAS
CONSERVATION AREAS
SAM
Drawn by:
Date:
Drawing No:
Scale:
Meetham Rob
01 November 2017
1:56500 at A3
Title:
6 Lines Maximum!
Plan 2: Sheffield Lakeland - Landscape Survey

KEY
Existing woodland to diversify
Existing heathland to manage
Existing key access points to the
landscape from settlements
Existing key routes & connections linking
people to the landscape
Conservation Areas
SAM
Nature reserves
Proposed key route linking people to key
elements of the landscape and other routes
Key habitat linkages
Areas of the landscape to restore character
Drawn by:
Date:
Drawing No:
Scale:
Meetham Rob
01 November 2017
1:56500 at A3
Title:
6 Lines Maximum!
Landscape Concept
Plan 3: Sheffield Lakeland - Landscape Concept

Landscape Character Type:
Slopes and Valleys with Woodland
Landscape Character, distinctiveness & Sense of Place
What is the LCTs key character & sense of place?
Enclosed, often strongly wooded sloping valley sides with gritstone edges at the ridges in places.
Generally a settled and attractive landscape
Sense of place: Strong Moderate Weak None
Landform and elements
A sloping landscape with glimpsed, often panoramic views to the surrounding higher ground and along the valleys.
Landcover pattern
A strongly wooded character with Irregular blocks of ancient semi‐natural and secondary woodland, some
enclosed permanent pasture and patches of acid grassland / bracken.
in what way do the following contribute to local character and sense of place?
Evidence of cultural heritage
Historic pattern of land use largely intact, other than in areas which are now reservoirs. The reservoirs
were constructed in the 1830s and illustrate a changing relationship with the landscape.
Settlement pattern and clusters of farms / cottages are a characteristic of past use.
Evidence of mining and quarrying heritage
The pattern of irregular fields has medieval origins.
Does this area have functional / aesthetic / visual associations with adjacent areas?
Physical, visual and aesthetic links to the Enclosed Gritstone Uplands LCT ‐ this LCT forms 'fingers'
stretching out from the developed areas to the east.
Settlement type / pattern
The reservoirs are direct evidence of the link between peoples needs in the developed areas and
Settlement is scattered throughout this LCT, with a number of villages, plus clusters of farms and cottages.
the surrounding landscape. Road corridors follow the valley bottoms
Dramatic edges often form the boundary between this LCT and the Enclosed Gritstone Uplands
Level of recreational use / Sensitivity Boundary types Enclosure
The reservoirs and plantations form a focus for recreation in the valleys. The wooded nature of this landscape A complex patchwork of irregular fields with A largely enclosed landscape (due to the screening
gives it a lower sensitivity than other LCTs within the Lakeland, with a capacity to 'absorb' recreational use some drystone walls and hedges effects of the extensive woodland cover)
Landscape condition & trend Boundaries (where they exist) are largely intact Boundaries: localised ‐ significant
Generally managed farmland and forestry. Many areas of coniferous plantation
Boundaries visually inconspicuous in the landscape
Ecological integrity does the landscape function as habitat for wildlife? Aesthetic Qualities Perceptual & Sensory Qualities
Habitat network Scale Pattern Balance Enclosure Diversity Attractive Unattractive
Extensive deciduous woodland cover throughout this LCT, often of ancient semi‐natural woodland comprising both intimate formal harmonious confined uniform Remote Active / Connected
sessile and pendunculate oak, usually with a mix of birch, holly, rowan and hazel small organised balanced enclosed simple Wild Settled / Managed
There is often a good ground flora, with species such as bluebell being widespread in some woods medium irregular discordant open diverse Tranquil Disturbed / Noisy / busy
Patches of acid grassland and bracken can often be found on the higher, steeper slopes, with some relic patches large random chaotic exposed complex Spiritual Threatening
of dwarf shrub heath. Some grasslands contain wet flushes.
vast
Cultural Integrity assess impact of recent changes, note significance of incongruous features Visual appraisal
Change of use Key attractors Key detractors
A pastoral, water management and forestry landscape with an industrial past. The reservoirs formed Views often short range and enclosed, but Industrial development in a number of areas
a significant change in the landscape. expansive where views open out. Incongruous conifer plantations
Some coniferous plantations, a number of which are extensive Wooded character which contrasts with the Highway infrastructure
Survival of cultural pattern
extensive areas of open water
This pattern of historic land use is largely intact
Landscape Guidelines Key views in Key views out
Manage the network of tracks & footpaths to maximise opportunities to enjoy the landscape From surrounding areas of higher ground Over expansive moorland to the west
Manage & enhance woodlands, plantation woodlands & clough woodlands Channelled views from developed areas to the Over the reservoirs to the surrounding mosaic landscape
Manage and enhance the diversity of agricultural grasslands east along river valleys of uplands and woodlands
Create new native broadleaf woodland
Dam walls of reservoirs often allow extensive scenic
views along the valley and up to the surrounding uplands.
Links to key SLP Outcomes / Projects
Inter‐visibility
Outcome 2.2 & 2.3: Investing in our core sites
Outcome 2.6: The Woodland Heart
Outcome 2.7: Creating the buffer & Stepping Stones
Outcome 2.8: Working with Water
Outcome 2.11: The Land before Industry
Glimpsed inter‐visibility east ‐ west within this LCT ‐ extensive in places
Glimpsed inter‐visibility with the Open Moors to the west.
Extensive inter‐visibility with the surrounding Enclosed Gritstone Uplands LCT
Glimpsed inter‐visibility towards the developed areas to the west

Landscape Character Type: Moorland
Landscape Character, distinctiveness & Sense of Place
What is the LCTs key character & sense of place?
Landform sloping up to the open moorland plateau to the west. Rough acid grassland, bracken & heather moorland
grazed by sheep. Long views north ‐ south and west to plateau skyline. Some relic patches of oak‐birch woodland.
Sense of place: Strong Moderate Weak None
Landform and elements
A sloping landscape with distant and panoramic views. Small cloughs are common feature
Landcover pattern
Widespread patches of semi‐natural vegetation (a mix of heather, bilberry & acid grassland) with extensive areas
of bracken. A largely treeless landscape ‐ some coniferous plantation woodland and scattered broadleaf in cloughs
in what way do the following contribute to local character and sense of place?
Evidence of cultural heritage
Historic pattern of land use largely intact. Some more recent conifer plantations
Some localised drystone walls and isolated farmsteads
Settlement type / pattern and Slopes & Valleys with Woodland LCTS.
Very sparsely settled with occasional isolated gritstone farmsteads and cottages.
Does this area have functional / aesthetic / visual associations with adjacent areas?
Physical, visual and aesthetic links to the Open Moors LCT to the west.
This LCT forms the visual skyline 'fringe' / background in views west from the Enclosed Gritstone Uplands
Level of recreational use / Sensitivity Boundary types Enclosure
Low level of recreational use, but much of this landscape is designated open access land. This LCT is Largely open. Some localised drystone wall A largely open landscape
considered to be sensitive to recreational pressure due to its open nature, land cover & sensory aspects boundaries in places. Boundaries: localised ‐ insignificant
Landscape condition & trend Boundaries (where they exist) are largely intact Boundaries visually inconspicuous in the landscape
Generally managed moorland. Some decline in native clough vegetation
Ecological integrity does the landscape function as habitat for wildlife? Aesthetic Qualities Perceptual & Sensory Qualities
Habitat network Scale Pattern Balance Enclosure Diversity Attractive Unattractive
Widespread patches of semi‐natural vegetation (a mix of heather, bilberry & acid grassland) with extensive intimate formal harmonious confined uniform Remote Active / Connected
areas of bracken. small organised balanced enclosed simple Wild Settled / Managed
Clough woodlands subject to lack of management medium regular discordant open diverse Tranquil Disturbed / Noisy / busy
Some springs and flushes with a more diverse flora and fauna. large random chaotic exposed complex Spiritual Threatening
vast
Cultural Integrity assess impact of recent changes, note significance of incongruous features Visual appraisal
Change of use Key attractors Key detractors
Historically a largely unenclosed grazed landscape with occasional drystone walls Open rising slopes with expansive views Inappropriate moorland management
Some coniferous plantations Wild character with little obvious evidence of Incongruous conifer plantations
Survival of cultural pattern
human activity
This pattern of historic land use is largely intact
Landscape Guidelines Key views in Key views out
Manage the network of tracks & footpaths to maximise opportunities to enjoy the landscape From areas of higher ground to the east Over expansive moorland to the west
Manage & enhance woodlands, plantation woodlands & restore clough woodlands Channelled views from the east along river valleys Over the mosaic landscape (uplands, woodlands, valleys
Enhance & restore moorland landscapes
and reservoirs) to the east
Create clough woodlands, create & link patches of wetland farmland habitats
The distinctive landform of Canyards Hill
Create, extend & link Areas of heath / moor
Links to key SLP Outcomes / Projects
Inter‐visibility
Outcome 2.3: Investing in our core sites
Outcome 2.6: The Woodland Heart
Outcome 2.7: Creating the buffer & Stepping Stones
Outcome 2.8:Working with water
Outcome 3: Better recorded & valued cultural heritage celebrated by local people and visitors
Extensive inter‐visibility north ‐ south within this LCT
Extensive inter‐visibility with the Open Moors to the west.
Extensive inter‐visibility with the Enclosed Gritstone Uplands LCT to the east
A number of informal parking areas on the eastern edge of the LCT
A number of informal parking areas on the eastern edge of the LCT

Landscape Character Type:
Enclosed Gritstone Uplands
Landscape Character, distinctiveness & Sense of Place
What is the LCTs key character & sense of place?
Rolling uplands with broad summits and edges. An open landscape with a strong pattern of enclosure
Sense of place: Strong Moderate Weak None
Landform and elements
Rolling uplands and broad ridge summits with some defined edges.
Landcover pattern
Permanent pasture and rough grazing enclosed by gritstone walls with a regular pattern of medium to large fields.
Remnant patches of rough land with bracken and gorse, heather and bilberry. Generally an open, treeless landscape
Settlement type / pattern
Sparsely settled with some villages and occasional isolated gritstone farmsteads
in what way do the following contribute to local character and sense of place?
Evidence of cultural heritage
Historic pattern of land use largely intact. Some more recent conifer plantations
Some prehistoric enclosures and dykes and later hillforts.
Does this area have functional / aesthetic / visual associations with adjacent areas?
Physical, visual and aesthetic links to the Open Moors and bisected by the 'fingers' of the
Wooded slopes and valleys LCT as they run westwards.
This LCT forms the visual skyline 'fringe' / background in views from the Slopes and Valleys with Woodland
Level of recreational use / Sensitivity Boundary types Enclosure
Low level of recreational use, but much of this landscape is designated open access land. This LCT is Extensive gritstone drystone walls A largely open landscape ‐ boundaries are low and form
considered to be sensitive to recreational pressure due to its open nature, land cover & sensory aspects Some hedgerows and fencing in lower areas a groundcover 'pattern' rather than restricting views
Landscape condition & trend Boundaries are largely intact, but some areas and sense of 'openness' in the landscape.
Generally managed moorland. Some decline in native clough vegetation of degradation and neglect Boundaries: extensive ‐ significant
Ecological integrity does the landscape function as habitat for wildlife? Aesthetic Qualities Perceptual & Sensory Qualities
Habitat network Scale Pattern Balance Enclosure Diversity Attractive Unattractive
Patches of semi‐natural vegetation (a mix of heather, bilberry & acid grassland). intimate formal harmonious confined uniform Remote Active / Connected
Some fields are dominated by rushes or are reverting to moorland, providing habitat diversity small organised balanced enclosed simple Wild Settled / Managed
Some springs and flushes with a more diverse flora and fauna. medium regular discordant open diverse Tranquil Disturbed / Noisy / busy
large random chaotic exposed complex Spiritual Threatening
vast
Cultural Integrity assess impact of recent changes, note significance of incongruous features Visual appraisal
Change of use Key attractors Key detractors
Historically a largely enclosed landscape with drystone walls defining pasture and enclosed moorland Open rising slopes with expansive views to the Areas of degradation of drystone walls
Some coniferous plantations high moors and into the wooded valleys Incongruous conifer plantations
Survival of cultural pattern A combination of settled and wild character with Some vertical infrastructure (Overhead Power Lines)
This pattern of historic land use is largely intact
some evidence of human activity
Landscape Guidelines Key views in Key views out
Protect and maintain historic dry stone walls From areas of higher ground (mainly to the west) Over expansive moorland to the west
Manage & enhance the diversity of agricultural grasslands Channelled views upwards from the river valleys Over the mosaic upland landscape beyond the valleys
Manage the network of tracks and footpaths to maximise opportunities to enjoy the landscape Views from main settled areas to the east Views of reservoirs on the lower ground
Create, extend & link Areas of heath / moor
The distinctive landform of Canyards Hill
Links to key SLP Outcomes / Projects
Outcome 2.7: Creating the buffer & Stepping Stones
Outcome 2.9: Back from the Brink
Outcome 2.10: What lies beneath
Outcome 2:12 Finding the 'Lost Ways'
Outcome 2:13 Restoring the lattice
Inter‐visibility
Extensive inter‐visibility north ‐ south within this LCT (over the lower slopes and valleys which bisect
this landscape into a series of ridges)
Extensive inter‐visibility with the Open Moors to the west.
Inter‐visibility with the Slopes and Valleys with Woodland on the lower ground between ridges

Landscape Character Type: Developed Land
Landscape Character, distinctiveness & Sense of Place
What is the LCTs key character & sense of place?
The key defining characteristic is that the previous landscape character has been altered significantly by the
influence of man.
Sense of place: Strong Moderate Weak None
Landform and elements
Varies ‐ but often on sloping land associated with the valley of the River Don as it heads south into Sheffield
Landcover pattern
Areas are residential, industrial, amenity land (such as allotments, cemeteries etc), informal open space,
road corridors etc are typical. Often the historic pattern remains.
Settlement type / pattern
Tends to be settled
in what way do the following contribute to local character and sense of place?
Evidence of cultural heritage
Some evidence of historic pattern remains in street layout, buildings and heritage features
Some relic heritage features such as the little matlock rolling mill
Does this area have functional / aesthetic / visual associations with adjacent areas?
Physical, visual and aesthetic links to the Slopes & Valleys with Woodland LCT running west
The Slopes & Valleys with Woodland LCT contains road corridors running west out to the developed areas
and contains reservoirs for water supply
The Enclosed Gritstone Upland LCT forms the visual skyline where there are extensive views to the west
Level of recreational use / Sensitivity Boundary types Enclosure
A high level of use by people including extensive residential areas and associated infrastructure, plus Mixed ‐ many garden boundaries with some Varies
amenity open spaces. This LCT is considered to have a very low sensitivity to changes. remnant drystone walls Boundaries: localised ‐ significant
Landscape condition & trend
Boundaries visually inconspicuous in the wider townscape
N/A
Ecological integrity does the landscape function as habitat for wildlife? Aesthetic Qualities Perceptual & Sensory Qualities
Habitat network Scale Pattern Balance Enclosure Diversity Attractive Unattractive
Tends to be limited, but localised interest on golf courses, amenity land and cemeteries intimate formal harmonious confined uniform Remote Active / Connected
Often a network of relic habitats such as woodland within the developed land small organised balanced enclosed simple Wild Settled / Managed
medium regular discordant open diverse Tranquil Disturbed / Noisy / busy
large random chaotic exposed complex Spiritual Threatening
vast
Cultural Integrity assess impact of recent changes, note significance of incongruous features Visual appraisal
Change of use Key attractors Key detractors
Ongoing development and changes of use including infrastructure (road corridors, sewage works etc) Falling slopes with expansive views of the Unsightly modern development often conflicts with
wider landscape in places
historic character
Survival of cultural pattern Developed character with much obvious evidence Infrastructure ‐ highway, water, power & telecoms
Some evidence of historic pattern remains in street layout, buildings and heritage features of human activity Developed character with much obvious evidence
of human activity
Landscape Guidelines Key views in Key views out
Manage the network of tracks & footpaths to maximise opportunities to access and enjoy the landscape From areas of higher ground to the west Glimpsed, transient views along the Valley bottoms
Manage, enhance & link the remaining areas of habitat Channelled views from the west along river valleys Glimpsed views towards the Enclosed Gritstone Uplands
and Moors beyond
Links to key SLP Outcomes / Projects
Outcome 2.5: Investing in our core sites
Outcome 2.6: The Woodland Heart
Outcome 2.7: Creating the buffer & Stepping Stones
Outcome 4.15: A landscape for everyone to enjoy
Outcome 4.16: Gateways to the landscape
Inter‐visibility
Glimpsed inter‐visibility north ‐ south within this LCT
Glimpsed inter‐visibility with the Open Moors to the west.
Glimpsed inter‐visibility with the Enclosed Gritstone Uplands LCT to the west
Glimpsed, transient inter‐visibility along the Slopes and Valleys with Woodland to the west.

APPENDIX 2: LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT PHOTOGRAPHS
Above Bradfield looking south west over Agden Reservoir (set in the Slopes & Valleys with Woodland LCT) towards the higher
ground beyond (Enclosed Gritstone Upland LCT)
West of Wharncliffe Side looking east down the Slopes & Valleys with Woodland LCT) towards the valley of the River Don
Looking north east from Bolsterstone Road over a degraded landscape within the Enclosed Gritstone Upland LCT

Looking north from Mortimer Road over east from Bolsterstone Road over Strines & Dale Dyke Reservoirs towards the
Enclosed Gritstone Upland LCT to the north
Looking east from the Langsett dam wall over localised industry, down the Slopes and Valleys with Woodland LCT with
Enclosed Gritstone Upland LCT on either side of the valley
Looking west from the Langsett dam wall over the reservoir to the high moorland LCT to the west

Looking south from Upper Midhope towards the higher Moorland LCT
Above Bradfield looking south over the Slopes and Valleys with Woodland LCT towards the Enclosed Gritstone Upland LCT
Looking north east over Damflask reservoir in the Slopes and Valleys with Woodland LCT towards the Enclosed Gritstone
Upland LCT on either side of the valley

Appendix 4
Ecosystem Services Report

A baseline ecosystem services
assessment of the Sheffield Lakeland
landscape
Author:
Dr Alison Holt
Reviewed by:
Dr Jim Rouquette
Natural Capital Solutions Ltd
Contact details:
www.naturalcapitalsolutions.co.uk
alison.holt@naturalcapitalsolutions.co.uk
Tel: 07973 332758
Report prepared for:
Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust
January 2018

Executive summary
The Sheffield Lakeland area lies between the western edge of the city of Sheffield,
and the moorland slopes of the Peak District National Park. It encompasses the
watersheds of Sheffield’s main rivers, including eight reservoirs that provide drinking
water to surrounding areas and beyond. It is also an area important for the
conservation of biodiversity with nationally and internationally important habitats
and species. The area has a rich cultural heritage and many visitors are drawn to the
recreational opportunities and aesthetic experiences that the area offers.
The Sheffield Lakeland is also a place where people live and supports livelihoods
associated with the land, for example farming and grouse moor management. These
activities sit alongside the other values placed on the landscape outlined above, and
create challenges for the sustainable management of the area. Declining biodiversity,
habitat degradation, diffuse pollution, rising recreational numbers and flooding are
increasing pressures.
This project uses a natural capital approach to assess the ecosystem services
provided by the Sheffield Lakeland area. This will serve as a baseline by which to
compare the success of the Sheffield Lakeland Partnership projects. The first step
was to understand the extent of the natural capital assets (habitats) in the area. A
qualitative assessment was made of the level of provision of the full range of
ecosystem services provided by the Lakeland area. Five ecosystem services have
been spatially mapped (reduction of air pollution, reduction of storm water runoff,
carbon storage, opportunities for cultural ecosystem services and provision for flora
and fauna. Three further services have been non-spatially quantified (carbon
sequestration, air pollution reduction and timber production).
A natural capital asset register has been created. It shows that improved grassland
covers the largest percentage (26%) of the Sheffield Lakeland area, with significant
areas of bog habitats (17%), woodland (15%), heather (9%) and heather grassland
(9%). Acid grassland, rough grassland and arable assets feature at smaller extents
(~5-6%). These assets support a wide range of provisioning, regulating and cultural
services. The most significant delivery is of drinking water provision, with agricultural
production and cultural services, such as recreation and aesthetic experiences also
being supported to a high level of provision. Regulating services tend to be at a lower
level due to the predominance of agricultural activity and grazed grassland.
The spatially and non-spatially quantified ecosystem services show the importance
of the woodland and bog habitats for storing carbon, reducing storm water runoff,
providing areas for recreation and habitat for biodiversity. Woodland is also
important for timber production and the reduction of air pollution, particularly on
the urban fringes where airborne pollution is higher. Other habitats play a role in
some of these services, but to a much smaller degree.
The breadth of Sheffield Lakeland Partnership projects can potentially increase the
capacity of the area to provide ecosystem services across all categories of services.
The projects focused on habitat creation, the promotion of natural flood
management and woodlands for water planting, are likely to increase the delivery of
important regulating services such as water quality regulation, flood alleviation, air
2

quality regulation, carbon sequestration, and increase recreational opportunities as
well as improving habitat for wildlife. Other projects that are focused on improving
access to the natural environments, creating locally inspired art and music, will also
increase the cultural services.
In order to achieve the aspirations of the Sheffield Lakeland Partnership project,
there is a need to promote the sustainable management of multiple ecosystem
service benefits. There are trade-offs between the provisioning service of agricultural
production promoting a dominance of improved grassland, and the delivery of other
regulating ecosystem services such as water quality regulation, flood alleviation,
carbon sequestration and erosion control. It is key to understand which habitats can
be extended or created, as well as restored to better quality, and where these
should be targeted to maximise the provision of multiple services. Given the
predominance of agriculture, it would be worth considering the feasibility of
Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes to incentivise management towards
creating more diverse habitats, or reducing specific impacts. Opportunity mapping
and existing hydrological modelling should be used to target the planting of
woodlands for water, to ensure that benefits can be gained across a wide range of
services. Collaboration with partnerships for improving moorland habitat would also
be beneficial for water and carbon storage benefits. Exploring the sites where
recreational opportunities, both physical and experiential, can be created alongside
the benefits discussed above should be a priority. Careful expansion of the ‘Outdoor
Economy’ is required so as not cause a decline in the natural capital that supports
the cultural services. Promoting the natural capital approach to sustainable
management among the members of the Sheffield Lakeland Partnership may be very
useful. Land owners and moorland managers particularly are becoming more
familiar with the natural capital concept. Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes
that offer additional income to change management practises may be a real
incentive for management change, certainly if societal pressure to change
management practices continues to rise.
It has not been possible to complete a comprehensive quantitative baseline
assessment of the ecosystem services in the Sheffield Lakeland area. Important gaps
are recreation, health and well-being and agricultural production. These could be
included with access to further data and resource. A proposal for reviewing the
ecosystem service provision of the Sheffield Lakeland area after the projects have
finished is being written. It would be useful to express any increases (or losses) in
ecosystem services in monetary terms at this stage. This shows the value of the
enhanced public benefits, and will be a convincing way to present the impact of the
SLLP project to key decision-makers and land managers.
3

Contents
Executive summary ....................................................................................................... 2
Contents ....................................................................................................................... 4
1. Background ............................................................................................................... 5
1.1 The natural capital approach ............................................................................. 6
1.2 Methodological approach .................................................................................. 8
2. Natural capital baseline assessment for the Sheffield Lakeland area ...................... 9
3. Ecosystem service provision baseline assessment ................................................. 21
3.1 Qualitative ecosystem services assessment ..................................................... 21
3.2 Quantitative ecosystem services assessment: spatial mapping ....................... 21
3.3 Quantitative ecosystem services assessment: non-spatial estimation ............. 31
3.4 Summary ........................................................................................................... 31
4. Impact of on-going initiatives ................................................................................. 32
5. Impact of the SLLP projects on ecosystem service provision ................................. 33
6. Summary and recommendations ........................................................................... 33
7. Future work ............................................................................................................ 34
Technical Appendix ..................................................................................................... 36
References .................................................................................................................. 42
4

1. Background
The Sheffield Lakeland (SL) area lies between the western edge of the city of
Sheffield and the moorland slopes of the Peak District National Park, Langsett
Reservoir and the Little Don Valley in the north and Redmires Reservoirs and the
Rivelin Valley in the south. The area is characterised by moorland slopes and cloughs,
enclosed gritstone upland, slopes and valleys with woodland, reservoirs and
scattered settlement, and urban fringe. It is an important area for the conservation
of biodiversity, with the western margins designated a Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI), Special Protected Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC),
and encompassing other nationally important habitats for wildlife. It is also
important for freshwater, with water flowing from the high moorlands, through
valleys and streams into the rivers of Sheffield. The reservoirs that capture drinking
water are a distinctive part of the landscape. The landscape holds evidence of its
pre-industrial and industrial heritage, with weirs, ancient monuments and Cruck
barns. This characteristic landscape provides homes, livelihoods, mainly through
farming and land management, and recreational opportunities for many visitors,
particularly around its reservoir sites.
Whilst this is a highly valued landscape there are challenges of declining biodiversity,
habitat degradation, diffuse pollution, with increasing recreation and risk of flooding.
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership (SLLP) have created a series of projects
that aim to address some of these challenges, but also to create a wilder and more
natural and resilient landscape, that supports wildlife, helps to reduce flooding,
provides clean air, improves health and well-being and offers recreational
opportunities for all.
Aim
The SLLP has commissioned Natural Capital Solutions to:
• provide a baseline ecosystem service assessment of the SL area and
recommendations for positive interventions that can be implemented by the
SLLP projects.
The baseline assessment of ecosystem services brings together existing spatial
ecosystem service assessments that have included the SL area, rather than providing
a new spatial assessment of ecosystem services. Three additional ecosystem services
have been non-spatially estimated. This assessment also includes a qualitative
overview of the baseline ecosystem service provision of the SL area, and how this
might change after the SLLP projects have been completed.
5

1.1 The natural capital approach
Natural capital can be defined as ‘..elements of nature that directly or indirectly
produce value to people, including ecosystems, species, freshwater, land, minerals,
the air and oceans’ Natural Capital Committee (2014). It is the stock of natural assets
(e.g. soils, water, biodiversity) that produces a wide range of benefits to people.
These benefits are known as ecosystem services, which include food production,
regulation of flooding and climate, pollination of crops, and cultural benefits such as
aesthetic value and recreational opportunities. These can be broken down into
provisioning, regulating and cultural services (Figure 1.1). The supporting services
(e.g. nutrient cycling) are considered to be ecological processes rather than services.
The concept of natural capital and its associated approaches can be used to
understand the natural capital assets of an area or organisation. Through a natural
capital assessment, it is possible to understand the extent and condition of those
assets, so the number and the flow of ecosystem service benefits from those assets
can be established. These benefits can then be valued. Information on condition,
benefits and their value allows informed and transparent land management
decisions to be made. It allows an understanding of the consequences of land
management change (whether that be a change from one type of natural habitat to
another, or from natural habitats to, for example, hard engineering or housing
developments) on the range of benefits that can be provided by a landscape, how
specific changes can be tailored to enhancing certain services or values, and how
environmental change (e.g. climate change) may affect natural capital assets, their
benefits and values. It can reveal the value of both public and private benefits that
come from managing landscapes. It is key to identifying trade-offs and synergies
between different ecosystem services.
Figure 1.1 Key types of ecosystem services (based on MA (2005))
There are three essential steps to complete when taking a spatial natural capital
approach (Figure 1.2). The first is to assess and map the natural capital assets. This is
a natural capital asset check (basis of a natural capital investment plan) and is also
6

the foundation of a natural capital account. It forms a baseline from which to keep
track of subsequent changes in the assets, that will have knock on effects to
ecosystem service provision. This requires bringing together data from a range of
sources across different organisations, but also identifying whether these data are
suitable for use in the estimation of the biophysical flow of a range of ecosystem
services (Step 2). Step 2 requires a certain level of natural capital asset data on which
to base the models which estimate ecosystem service flow / production. This varies
depending on the type of models used to estimate the services (e.g. EcoServ GIS,
LUCI), and on the services that are to be modelled (e.g. recreation, carbon
sequestration, agricultural production). For the ecosystem service maps to be of any
use as a decision-making tool, it also needs to be completed at an appropriate spatial
resolution to the area of interest. The last step uses economic valuation to quantify
the benefits that people gain from ecosystem services. Economic valuation can be
estimated in a number of units but it is common to use monetary valuation because
it is familiar, continuous unit of measurement and comparable. This requires further
data on market values or other studies from which the value of benefits can be
transferred. Cultural services remain difficult to value, and there are still no studies
from which values can reliably be transferred for water quality and flood alleviation
services.
Biodiversity is part of natural capital and performs important functions within
ecosystems. It plays particularly important roles in relation to ecosystem services,
although the complexities of these relationships are not fully understood. When
considering the valuation of ecosystem services, biodiversity is important in a
number of ways: (i) as a factor that regulates the ecosystem processes that underpin
ecosystem services, (ii) as a final ecosystem service that contributes directly to some
goods and their values, and (iii) it can itself be the good that has value.
Step 1. Assess and map
natural capital assets
Phase 1 and 2
Step 2. Quan5fy and map
ecosystem service flows
Phase 3
Step 3. Valua5on of benefits
Phase 3
Figure 1.2 Natural capital assessment framework
7

1.2 Methodological approach
A spatial mapping approach is used to describe the extent and quality of the natural
capital assets that provide ecosystem services in the SL area. Existing data on the
extent and condition of the natural capital assets of these sub-catchments was
gathered. An overview of the mosaic of broad habitats in the SL was achieved using
the CEH Land Cover Map (LCM) 2007. Although now rather dated, this gives a good
indication of the diversity of habitats in this area, and is the basis for many of the soil
properties and ecosystem service maps. The terrestrial ‘Habitats of Principal
Importance in England’ (Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act
2006 Section 41) data were also used.
A wide range of data has been used to assess the extent of the natural capital assets
of the SL area. An assessment has been made of the extent of each habitat, and also
their conservation status. An assessment of other important aspects of natural
capital that act as a foundation for the provision of ecosystem services have been
included, for example, carbon storage capacity, and accessibility for recreation.
The woodland data used was from the Forestry Commission’s National Forest
Inventory. Data on carbon storage in the soil and above ground were from the
Natural England and CEH natural capital maps (https://eip.ceh.ac.uk/naturalenglandncmaps).
The majority of the data were at the national level, so all maps were
derived by clipping the data to the boundaries of the SL area using GIS software.
8

2. Natural capital baseline assessment for the Sheffield Lakeland area
The Sheffield Lakeland area (outlined in green in Figure 2.1) lies between the
western edge of the city of Sheffield and the moorland slopes of the Peak District
National Park, and in total covers an area of ~14,500 ha.
¯
0 2.5 5 Kilometers
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Figure 2.1 The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership area.
9

The SL area is characterised by 12 broad habitats (see Figure 2.2). The eastern fringes
of the area are urban and suburban. Extending out from here are a mix of
broadleaved woodland in the valleys with grazed improved grassland and reservoirs
in the valley bottoms. Within this are patches of acid grassland, moving into rough
and heather grassland, conifer plantations, heather and bog habitats in the higher
western fringes.
´
Broadleaved woodland
Coniferous woodland
Arable and horticulture
Improved grassland
Rough grassland
Acid grassland
Heather
Heather grassland
Bog
Freshwater
Urban
Suburban
0 4 Kilometers
Figure 2.2 Land Cover Map 2007 for the SLLP area. This shows 10 broad natural land covers
and two built environment categories. Source: LCM2007 © and database right NERC (CEH)
2011. All rights reserved. © Crown Copyright and database right 2007. Ordinance Survey
Licence number 100017572. © third party licensors.
10

There are a number of nationally important priority habitats in the SL area. These are
important habitats for biodiversity. There are 10 priority habitat types with
deciduous woodland and blanket bog as the most predominant of all the habitats
(see Table 2.1).
Blanket bog
Deciduous woodland
Fragmented heath
Good quality semi-improved grassland
Grass moorland
Lowland dry acid grassland
Lowland fens
Lowland heathland
Lowland meadows
Purple moor grass and rush pastures
Figure 2.3 NERC Priority Habitats in the SLLP area that cover an area of 2453.36 ha. Source:
Natural England Priority habitat inventory for the North of England 2016.
11

Table 2.1 Area of each Priority Habitat in the SL area.
Habitat
Area ha (% of priority
habitat area)
Blanket bog 819.38 (33.4)
Broadleaved woodland 1090.08 (44.43)
Fragmented heath 35.53 (1.45)
Good quality semi- improved 41.51 (1.69)
grassland
Grass moorland 241.21 (9.83)
Lowland dry acid grassland 6.85 (0.28)
Lowland fens 4.20 (0.17)
Lowland heathland 43.61 (1.78)
Lowland meadows 15.76 (0.64)
Purple moor grass and rush pastures 5.81 (0.24)
Not main habitat but additional 149.44 (6.09)
habitats present
To estimate the total area of woodland in the SL area, data from the National Forest
Inventory was used. The extent of the woodland area under all stages of woodland
management described in Figure 2.4 is 2188.40 ha. The area of coniferous woodland
is 696.44 ha (35% of all woodland in SL not including felled areas and prepared
ground) and of deciduous woodland is 1301.29 ha (65%). A significant proportion of
the woodland area is ancient woodland (327 ha, 16.32%).
A significant proportion of the SL area has a protected status. The moorland habitats
extending in from the western fringes are a SAC (4914.65 ha, 34% of the SL area),
and SPA (5099.98 ha, 35%), and there are a number of sites designated SSSIs
(5174.86 ha, 35%) in the same area and two sites in the east of the SL area (Figure
2.5). The area also encompasses a network of Local Wildlife Sites, which cover an
area of 1313.53 ha (Figure 2.6). This includes reserves managed by the Sheffield and
Rotherham Wildlife Trust (SRWT), an area of 121.44 ha.
12

Assumed woodland
Broadleaved
Conifer
Felled
Ground prep
Low density
Mixed mainly broadleaved
Mixed mainly conifer
Shrub
Young trees
Ancient woodland
Figure 2.4 Different types and stages of managed woodland in the SLLP area. Source:
Forestry Commission National Forest Inventory 2016).
13

Special Area of Conservation
Special Protection Area
Sites of Special Scientific Interest
Figure 2.5 UK and EU conservation designations in the SL area. Source: Natural England via
data.gov.uk.
14

´
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust Reserves
Local Wildlife Sites
Figure 2.6 Local Wildlife Sites and Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust Reserves. Source:
SRWT and Sheffield City Council.
15

Rivers
WFD Waterbodies (Reservoirs)
Flood zone 3
Flood zone 2
Figure 2.7 Rivers, waterbodies and flood zones in the SL area. Source: Environment Agency
via data.gov.uk. OS Open Rivers
The SL area is comprised of 8 water bodies: Agden, Broomhead, Dale Dike, Langsett,
Midhope, Redmires, and Strines reservoirs and Rivelin Dams (Figure 2.7). These
cover an area of 207.98 ha. The rivers Don, Loxley, Porter and Rivelin flow through
this area and total 120.32 km in length. It is evident that there is a 1% risk of flooding
(Flood zone 3) around Langsett and Midhope reservoirs and on The Porter in the
north of the SL area, downstream of Broomhead reservoir on Ewden Beck, at
Damflask reservoir on the River Loxley, at Redmires reservoir and Rivelin Dams. This
is an area of 452.12 ha. The flood risk reduces to 0.1% (Flood zone 2) as the rivers
flow into the suburbs of the city, which is an area of 551.12 ha.
16

Live Environmental Stewardship Schemes
Figure 2.8 Live environmental stewardship agreements. Source: Natural England via
data.gov.uk.
The SL landscape is shaped by agriculture and is a Less Favoured Area (LFA). As a
result it is predominantly sheep farming in this area, which is reliant on government
subsidies. Sheep grazing occurs on the open moors, but more significantly on hill
sides and valley bottoms on improved grassland covering 3811.95 ha of the SL area.
An area of 7319.91 ha is under a stewardship agreement (Figure 2.8): entry level
(741.45 ha), entry level plus higher level (6547.89 ha), or higher level stewardship
(30.57 ha)). Arable takes up a small proportion of the area covering only 749.81 ha.
17

CROW Open access (2008)
Figure 2.9 CROW open access areas of the SL area. Source: Natural England via data.gov.uk.
The SL area is important for recreation and provides a destination for a variety of
activities, for example, walking, running, climbing, mountain biking and wildlife
watching. An area of 5406.21 ha (37% of SL area) of the SL is open access, this is
largely the moor and heath habitats (Figure 2.10). There are also numerous
greenspaces on the eastern side of the area (251 ha) that are important for
recreation and leisure (Figure 2.10).
18

´
Greenspaces (recreational, institurtional etc)
Figure 2.10 Greenspaces for leisure and recreation. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown
copyright and database right 2017.
19

Asset register
An asset register (Table 2.2) has been created for the SL area, based on the
information presented above. This provides an important baseline summary of the
natural capital assets of the project area. An asset register can be taken again after
the SLLP projects have been completed to capture any habitat that has been created
or lost. It has not been possible to make an assessment of the quality of the natural
capital assets in this project, due to resource constraints. If data exist on the quality
of these habitats, it would be useful to add this to the asset register. Many of the
Partnership projects will focus on improved management of existing habitats, rather
than extensive habitat creation, so it would be good to capture these changes in
order to assess impacts.
Table 2.2 The area of each habitat type in the SL area and the proportion of the area it
occupies.
Habitat Area (Ha) % of SLLP area
Woodland 1 2188.40 14.98
Bog habitats 2 2536.34 17.36
Heather 2 1303.83 8.93
Freshwater 2 393.55 2.69
Improved
3811.95 26.10
grassland 2
Heather grassland 2 1258.08 8.61
Acid grassland 2 876.58 6.00
Rough grassland 2 851.81 5.83
Total grassland 6975.96 47.76
habitats 2,3,4
Arable 2 749.81 5.13
Suburban 2 504.09 3.45
Urban 2 132.82 0.91
Data sources: 1 National Forest Inventory 2016, 2 Land Cover Map 2007, 3 Priority Habitat Inventory
2016, 4 OS Greenspace 2017
The asset register shows that the dominant habitat within the SL area is improved
grassland. Bog habitats and woodland are also significant habitats, with smaller areas
of heather and heather grassland. Acid grassland, rough grassland and arable land
covers occupy only small proportions of the area.
20

3. Ecosystem service provision baseline assessment
3.1 Qualitative ecosystem services assessment
A qualitative assessment has been made of the ecosystem services provided by the
Sheffield Lakeland area (Table 3.1). Existing studies that have measured ecosystem
service provision (or ecosystem service flows) in the area have only measured a
limited sub set of all the possible services that can be provided by the Lakeland
landscape. This is largely due to the aims of the studies from which the maps and
data are derived having different aims to this project, but also because some
ecosystem services remain difficult to measure. The qualitative assessment outlined
the type of services the area is likely to provide, and the level of delivery. The level of
service provision is assigned taking into consideration the ecosystem services that
would be expected to be supplied given the mix of habitats within the SL area. These
are expert estimations, but are essentially best guesses. This assessment has been
based on the latest Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services
(CICES v5.1), and a qualitative description of ecosystem services provision used in
the National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA 2011). Unsurprisingly there is very
significant delivery of drinking water, and significant delivery of agricultural
production, and some of the cultural services, for example aesthetic experiences,
recreation and the need to conserve the natural environment. The regulating
services tend to have a slightly lower delivery due to the predominance of
agricultural activity and grazed grassland. Health and well-being is thought to be low
despite the recreational opportunities.
3.2 Quantitative ecosystem services assessment: spatial mapping
The only way to be reasonably sure of the level of delivery of an ecosystem service is
to measure it using spatial modelling approaches. The quantitative analysis of
ecosystem services in this section is based on work completed by a research team at
the University of Sheffield (UoS) (see Holt et al. 2015). The aim of the research
project was to understand the spatial distribution of ecosystem services across the
Metropolitan Borough of Sheffield (MBS). The SL area occupies the western edge of
the city, and the north-western section of the Peak District National Park within the
MBS area. The UoS data were clipped to the SL area using GIS software.
Five ecosystem services from the UoS study are relevant to the SL area: (i) reduction
of air pollution by vegetation, (ii) reduction of storm water runoff through retention
in soils and by vegetation, (iii) carbon storage in soils and vegetation, (iv)
opportunities for cultural ecosystem services (e.g. recreation and relaxation) in
greenspace, and the (v) provision of habitat for flora and fauna. The services have
been modelled to South Yorkshire Historic Environment Character Areas (see
Technical Appendix). The approach used to map and to model each of these
ecosystem services, including the caveats that need to be considered when
interpreting these analyses, have also been included in the Technical Appendix (p32).
The following maps indicate the level of ecosystem service benefit that is provided
by the green infrastructure / habitat in the SL area. This is shown for each of the five
ecosystem services mapped individually, and also mapped together to show
hotspots of multiple ecosystem service provision. Also included are maps of above
ground and topsoil carbon clipped from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and
Natural England natural capital maps.
21

Table 3.1 Qualitative estimation of the baseline delivery of ecosystem services in the SL
area: – no delivery; -/+ some delivery but not significant, + delivery, ++ significant delivery;
+++ very significant delivery.
Ecosystem service
category
Provisioning
Regulating
Cultural
Final services
Baseline
provision
Food: crop and livestock production ++
Wild food plants ++
Fibre timber ++
Fuel: wood / wood fuel +
Drinking water (surface and ground) +++
Bio-remediation +
Sequestration and storage (carbon) ++
Filtration and accumulation (air quality ++
regulation)
Erosion control and buffering of mass +
movement
Wind protection +
Fire protection +
Hydrological cycle and water flow (flood
regulation) +
Pest and disease control +
Pollination +
Water quality regulation +
Soil quality regulation +
Climate regulation +
Habitat and population maintenance ++
Noise attenuation +
Aesthetic experiences ++
Education, training and scientific
+
investigation and cultural heritage
Health and well-being +
Experiential and physical recreation ++
Characteristics and features of
++
biodiversity that are valued (existence,
option, bequest)
Spiritual and cultural experiences ++
22

Reduction of air pollution
1.12 - 1.23
1.23 - 1.32
1.32 - 1.41
1.41 - 1.51
1.51 - 1.68
1.68 - 2.21
Figure 3.1 The mean reduction in pollution (flux μg m -2 s -1 ) for Sheffield’s two most
problematic pollutants PM 10 and NO 2 in the SL area. Source: Holt et al. (2015).
There is a low removal of pollutants in the moorland and freshwater habitats, and
highest removal in areas of the SL with woodland. Trees are the most effective
vegetation at absorbing airborne pollutants. Grassland habitats do absorb some
pollution, but this is minimal.
23

Reduction of storm water runoff
0.06 - 0.87
0.87 - 1.34
1.34 - 1.74
1.74 - 2.26
2.26 - 2.82
2.82 - 3.26
Figure 3.2 The ability of natural land covers in the SL area to soak up storm water runoff (cm
depth m -2 ). This is the average reduction in run off of a typical rainfall event in Sheffield, and
an extreme rainfall event (based on June 2007). Source: Holt et al. (2015).
The middle section of the SLLP area from north to south, which comprises a mosaic
of bog, heather, woodland, and a range in quality of grasslands, can retain the
greatest amount of water, the higher bog is able to do this less well. The service is at
its lowest in the suburban and urban areas due to sealed surfaces (note that the
reservoirs are also poor at soaking up water, but the model only considered the
capacity of vegetation to soak up water).
24

Carbon storage
1.45 - 48.68
48.68 - 87.71
87.71 - 124.03
124.03 - 175.87
175.87 - 276.24
276.24 - 675.45
Figure 3.3 The carbon storage capacity (tonnes per ha) of natural land covers in the SL area.
Source: Holt et al. (2015).
The bog habitat areas at the western fringes are the most effective at storing carbon
(particularly Howden, Broomhead, Midhope and Hallam Moors). Other habitats that
show high carbon storage are woodlands, areas of heather and heather grassland.
The total carbon stored using this modelling approach, which combines above
ground vegetation and soil carbon, is 4,381,883 tonnes.
25

Above ground carbon
0.38 - 9.95
9.95 - 19.51
19.51 - 29.08
29.08- 38.64
38.64 - 48.21
Figure 3.4 Above ground carbon (tonnes per ha) mapped at 1 x 1 km. Contains data supplied
by Natural Environment Research Council © NERC (Centre for Ecology & Hydrology).
The total carbon stored by above ground vegetation is 141,836 tonnes in the SL area.
The areas where carbon storage is low are the high moorland areas where there is
little vegetation and the middle of the SL area, which is dominated by improved and
rough grassland and grazing. Woodland is associated with the highest carbon storage
values.
26

Topsoil carbon
49.67 - 58.50
58.50 - 67.33
67.33 - 76.16
76.16 - 84.98
84.98 - 93.81
Figure 3.5 Topsoil (0-15cm) carbon (tonnes per ha) mapped at 1 x 1 km. Contains data
supplied by Natural Environment Research Council © NERC (Centre for Ecology & Hydrology).
White areas are those without data.
The total topsoil carbon storage in the SLLP is 1,061,010 tonnes. Topsoil carbon is at
its highest in the bog and heather habitats at the western side of the SL area. In good
condition bog habitats act as a carbon sink and play an important role in the control
of water resources (UK NEA 2011). There are still reasonably high levels of topsoil
carbon in the east of the region. The lowest level appears to be associated with a
large area of arable in the mid northern edge of the SL area.
27

Opportunities for cultural ecosystem services
0
1
Figure 3.6 Accessible areas for cultural ecosystem services (e.g. recreation) according to
ANGSt guidelines (Natural England 2010). Source: Holt et al. (2015).
The area in red in Figure 3.6 shows which regions of the SL are accessible for
benefiting from cultural ecosystem service benefits, according to the ANGSt criteria.
This area (1) totals 8011.60 ha. These accessible areas are characterised by moorland,
heather, heather grassland, woodland and areas around the reservoirs, common,
parkland and cemeteries on the edges of the city. Inaccessible land is largely
agricultural (pasture and arable/horticultural).
28

Provision of habitat for flora and fauna
0.04 - 1.19
1.19 - 1.60
1.60 - 1.90
1.90 - 2.12
2.12 - 2.33
2.33 - 2.61
Figure 3.7 The capacity of the SLLP area to provide habitat for flora and fauna measured
using an index combining habitat diversity, area of natural land covers and their connectivity.
Source: Holt et al. (2015).
Biodiversity is important for the resilience of ecosystems, and as the base for the
provision of ecosystem services. This index reflects the proportion of the area that is
comprised of natural land cover, the diversity of habitats and their connectivity. The
bog / moorland areas provide the highest proportion of these three characteristics,
along with woodlands, heather, heather and acid grassland. The highest scoring area
is Loxley and Wadsley Common (south-eastern edge of the SL area / north-western
fringe of the city). The index is lower where there is agricultural land.
29

Hotspots of service provision
¹
Number of ES
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Figure 3.8 The number of services for which each Historic Environment Character Area is a
hotspot. Hotspots are defined as the top 10% of Historic Environment Character Area
polygons with the highest ecosystem services provision value. Source: Holt et al. (2015).
Areas that provide up to 5 or 6 services at a high level of provision, tend to be areas
of woodland (the only area to score 6 under this way of measuring hotspots is
Wantley Dragon Wood in Deepcar). The moorland and reservoir areas provide up to
4 ecosystem services. The agricultural areas tend to be those that only produce 1
service. Suburban and urban areas with no green space do not provide any.
30

3.3 Quantitative ecosystem services assessment: non-spatial estimation
Three ecosystem services were quantified specifically for this project. While spatial
mapping would be slightly more useful for decision-making, the total physical value
of ecosystem services are still useful as a baseline. Data on the spatial extent of
woodland and grassland habitats were derived from section 2. The methods used to
calculate carbon sequestration, timber production and air pollution regulation are
outlined in the Technical Appendix.
Table 3.2 Annual physical flows (non-spatial) of ecosystem services from the woodland and
grassland elements of the SL area.
Ecosystem service
Annual physical flow
Carbon sequestration (tCO 2 ) 18,115.62
(woodland)
Air pollution regulation (t) PM 10
SO 2
(woodland and grassland)
Timber production (m 3 )
(woodland)
162.32
3.61
16,110.80
The non-spatial physical flows of carbon sequestration are reasonable (Table 3.2). If
this service was mapped spatially, it would show the biggest difference in carbon
sequestration capacity between coniferous and deciduous woodland, the mix of
coniferous species in the SL area would show higher levels of production. The same
trend would be seen for the timber production service. Table 3.2 also shows a
reasonable capacity of the grassland and woodland habitats to take up PM 10 and SO 2 .
If mapped spatially the woodlands would perform better than the grassland habitats,
and the coniferous woodland would take up slightly more pollutants than the
deciduous woodland. The biggest difference would be seen in the spatial position of
the woodland and grassland relative to the background pollution levels. It is likely
that the woodland and grassland nearest to the city fringes in the east of the SL area
would have higher background pollution levels, therefore provide higher levels of
the pollution regulation service.
3.4 Summary
The qualitative assessment of ecosystem services shows that the natural capital of
Sheffield Lakeland provides a diverse range of ecosystem services that will benefit
people within and outside the area. However, there are trade-offs between the level
of provision of these services, and whilst some of the provisioning services such as
agricultural and timber production are high, there will be impacts on the provision of
some of the regulating ecosystem services (e.g. pollination, pest and disease control,
erosion control, water regulation and quality).
The mapping of ecosystem services shows the relative importance of the natural
capital assets across the SL area for providing ecosystem services. The actual values
of provision are not as important here, as the relative levels of provision. The
moorland habitat is very important for carbon storage (topsoil), but is performing
less well for reduction of storm water runoff, and is not effective at providing air
31

pollution regulation (but there is low background air pollution in this rural area). It is
also vitally important for the provision of cultural services, and habitat for
biodiversity. Woodland is an important habitat for all of the ecosystem services. In
particular its role in water quality regulation, flood alleviation, recreational
opportunities and other cultural services will be vital for the SL area, given the
environmental challenges that exist. The maps and the non-spatial physical flows
also highlight the capacity of the woodland to take up carbon and airborne
pollutants. It is important that woodlands and greenspaces, particularly on the edge
of the SL area near the urban fringe, can be used to maximise these services where
demand is at its greatest.
This is by no means a comprehensive baseline quantification and mapping of
ecosystem services. There are important ecosystem service benefits that have not
been captured. For example, recreation in terms of the number of visits made to the
area, and to which sites the visits are made, the health and well-being benefits
derived from these visits, and the agricultural production value. It is possible to
measure these services with further data and resource. To pick up the natural capital
changes, and consequent changes in the flow of ecosystem service benefits, in the
partnership area after the projects have been completed, the area would need to be
spatially mapped and modelled.
4. Impact of on-going initiatives
There are some on-going initiatives that may have impact on the SL area during the
project period. However, there is little information on which to base an
understanding on how these projects will modify its natural capital.
Sheffield City Council’s Flood Alleviation Scheme
The Rivelin Roscoe flood storage area (a 11-12m high barrier across the Rivelin
valley) is likely to have a significant impact on ecosystem service provision in the
SLLP area. It is particularly likely to reduce the aesthetic, well-being and recreation
benefits of the area, as well as there being a loss of other services due to the
replacement of natural capital with grey infrastructure. However, there have been
funding issues and there is no set timescale for the plan. The case for Natural Flood
Risk Management is being put forward, and the SLLP projects can provide
opportunities to support this.
Sheffield Moors Partnership
The Sheffield Moors Partnership are planning woodland management works to be
continued at Redmires Reservoir Plantations, and Lady Canning’s Plantation in 2018.
There will be increases in footpath access and improved provision for cyclists around
specific areas of Redmires Reservoir. Parking and visitor management is also to be
improved. Conservation grazing continues at Redmires. Wyming Brook is increasing
the structure of the habitat, and blocking historic drainage ditches to restore natural
storage and movement of water within the blanket bog. At Wyming Brook the
moorland fringe woodland contains pine and larch with an oak understorey. This
may be managed for predominantly native woodland in the future. This is likely to
increase the recreation service, and increase the flood alleviation capacity of the
area.
32

Yorkshire Water’s SSSI recovery programme
There are some areas of SSSI in the SLLP owned by Yorkshire Water (YW). YW aim to
maintain and manage SSSIs to ensure that they meet target condition (recovering or
favourable status). It is not clear exactly which sites they will be improving in the
SLLP area.
Moors for the Future / MoorLIFE 2020
The far western fringes of the SLLP may overlap with some of the Moors for the
Future Moor (MFTF) LIFE 2020 projects. MFTF are to produce a map that will
highlight where these projects fall within the SLLP area.
5. Impact of the SLLP projects on ecosystem service provision
The breadth of SLLP projects can potentially increase the capacity of the area to
provide ecosystem services across all categories of services (provisioning, regulating,
and cultural, see Figure 1.1). A number of projects are focused on the restoration of
wetland, wet grassland, meadows, heathland, hedgerows and improving
management and restoring woodland habitats across SRWT reserves, SSSI sites,
across the river valleys and around reservoir sites within the SL area. One project in
particular focuses on promoting Natural Flood Management and increased water
quality. Habitat interventions across small sites in the SL area will roughen the
landscape and improve soil retention. These projects are likely to increase the ability
of the natural capital to deliver increased flood alleviation, water purification, air
quality regulation, carbon sequestration, timber / wood fuel production, pollination,
climate regulation, and opportunities for recreation, whilst creating quality habitat
to support biodiversity and promote resilience of the ecological system.
A number of projects will also promote the cultural services that are supported by
the natural capital of the SL area. The restoration of buildings and dry stone walls,
the increased accessibility of sites, the increased ability of isolated or vulnerable
social groups to reach the natural environment of the SL area, the art and stories and
music rooted in the areas history, are key to increasing the cultural heritage,
aesthetic and spiritual values, recreational opportunities and health and well-being
associated with the landscape.
6. Summary and recommendations
There are particular issues and pressures in this region around the decline in
biodiversity, the importance of water quality and storage, the need to alleviate
downstream flooding in the upper reaches of the catchment, the impacts of marginal
sheep farming, and to continue providing recreational opportunities and maintain
the cultural heritage for a growing population. Consequently there is a need to
manage the landscape for multiple-benefits. The key is to understand which habitats
can be ecologically restored, extended or created, and where these should be
located, to ensure that a suite of critical services can be provided simultaneously.
Trade-offs between ecosystem services are inevitable, and it may not be possible to
enhance certain services significantly unless some existing habitats are transformed
from their current use. The SL area is marginal for agriculture, despite this a large
proportion of the area is under sheep farming. Such areas tend only to provide food
33

production services, and negatively impact of the ability of the natural environment
to provide other ecosystem services. It would be very beneficial for the SLLP projects
to focus on how to encourage different land management approaches that create
habitats that deliver multiple services e.g. woodland creation. As the UK’s
agricultural policy is reviewed for exiting the EU, Payments for Ecosystem Services
(PES) have been identified as a measure that can encourage changes in farm
practices. The feasibility and benefits of this type of approach should be considered
in the SL area.
The SLLP projects consider the need to slow the flow using on farm measures and
planting woodland for water. Opportunity mapping should be considered for
understanding where planting woodlands in the river catchments could be optimised
to deliver conservation, flood alleviation, water quality regulation and erosion
control. If hydrological modelling for the catchments within the SL area has already
been completed, and is accessible, this should be consulted before decisions are
made on where the best woodland for water sites might be. This is important given
the need to promote Natural Flood Management in the light of the Sheffield Flood
Alleviation proposals. Influencing the management of, and restoring peat bog, will
also be of importance for water and carbon storage capacity. Collaboration with
other partnerships (e.g. Moors for the Future) may be the way forward here.
It is vital to ensure that the natural capital assets are managed to ensure
provisioning and regulating services, but cultural services are extremely important to
the SL area. Exploring the sites where recreational opportunities, both physical and
experiential, can be created alongside the benefits discussed above should be a
priority. However, this is a delicate balance, and there is a real danger that
enhancing the ‘Outdoor Economy’ strategy of the Sheffield City Council too much
could create trade-offs rather than synergies between these different services.
Recreation and health and well-being are highly valuable public benefits, but these
will decline if the natural capital that supports them is eroded from high recreational
pressure.
Promoting the natural capital approach to sustainable management of the SL area
among partners could be very useful. Land owners and moorland managers
particularly are becoming more familiar with the natural capital concept, and are
beginning to see how a natural capital accounting approach could be used to
demonstrate the public benefits that come from their businesses. Taking a natural
capital approach to assess businesses and land management decisions reveals both
the ecosystem services and disservices associated with the practices. Payments for
Ecosystem Services schemes that offer additional income to change management
practises may be a real incentive for management change, certainly if societal
pressure to change management practices continues to rise.
7. Future work
There is further work that could be done to create a more comprehensive baseline
of the ecosystem services provision by which to measure SLLP project success. Only a
subset of services have been measured. Recreation, health and well-being and
34

agricultural production are all services that it would be beneficial to capture for the
SL area.
The approach taken here is at the SL landscape scale. The review of ecosystem
service provision after the SLLP project has come to an end will also be at this scale,
in order to assess the combined impacts of the partnership projects. However, this
natural capital approach could also be usefully applied at the project level,
particularly in the case of the Natural Flood Management and Woodlands project. It
is important that the projects record the quality of the baseline habitats at the
beginning of the project, to ensure that successes can be assessed at their end.
A proposal for reviewing the ecosystem service provision of the SL area is being
written. It would be useful to express any increases (or losses) in ecosystem services
in monetary terms at this stage. This shows the value of the enhanced public
benefits, and will be a convincing way to present the impact of the SLLP project to
key decision-makers and land managers.
35

Technical Appendix
Data interpretation and caveats
Each of the maps requires careful interpretation, bearing in mind how the data were
derived, modelled and the scale at which it has been mapped. The LCM 2007 is
based on remotely sensed data (Landsat, see Morton et al. (2011)). There are
misclassification errors with certain habitats in this map, particularly for habitats
relevant to the sub-catchment areas e.g. grassland, heather grass, bogs and montane
habitats. These errors can exceed 50% when distinguishing between rough, acid and
calcareous grassland. The resolution of the data is also quite coarse (25m). We,
therefore, consider the priority habitats map, based on the priority habitats
inventory for the North of England (2016), to be more reliable. This is because it is
taken from a number of different sources that include on the ground assessments,
National Vegetation Classification surveys, condition assessments, SSSI and
Environmental Stewardship surveys. Here, the LCM 2007 is useful for characterising
the habitats in between the priority habitats.
Any errors in the baseline data will be taken through into ecosystem service
modelling. The land cover data is not up to date, so there may be small areas of
habitat that have increased, decreased or no longer exist. For example, areas of
woodland that have been felled. This should be considered when using the
ecosystem service maps, as these maps are based on LCM 2007 data. The modelling
approach will add further error, although attempts are made to minimise these (see
Holt et al. 2016 for further details). The models for each ecosystem service are
indicators of that service, not measures of the service itself. They are also relatively
simple models (in order to be user friendly) that can effectively capture the
processes for which they are indicators. They, therefore, give an indication of the
direction and magnitude of service provision, rather than a direct and accurate
measurement of it.
Spatial mapping of ecosystem services
The ecosystem service models (section 3.) were taken from a scientific paper (Holt et
al. (2015)). Below describes the approach, data and models used.
Spatial units for mapping
Initially, ecosystem services were modelled over the grid of 500m x 500m squares
imposed within the boundaries of the unitary authority of Sheffield (derived from
GIS data from the Office for National Statistics, 2004). They were then, using means
weighted by area, mapped at the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Character
Areas spatial unit (see the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation
Project http://sytimescapes.org.uk).
Ecosystem service models
Ecosystem service models were based on existing models that could be used, or
adapted for use, in combination with the study area data on land cover, to enable
calculation of the level of provision of each service. These models were used to show
the additional service generated by the urban greenspace infrastructure, when
36

compared to the non-green alternative, i.e. an entirely built environment. So, for
example the difference in pollutant removal between the urban environment with
greenspace in it and the same area with the greenspace replaced by non-green
(built) urban surfaces. The reason for this is that artificial surfaces will also influence
the particular processes underlying the services we are interested in, particularly in
the case of storm water run-off, reduction of air pollution and carbon storage. For
example, they can provide deposition surfaces for pollutants, abstract small amounts
of storm water and urban soils can contain a substantial amount of organic carbon
beneath impervious surfaces.
The ecosystem services of reduction of air pollution, heat island mitigation, storm
water runoff reduction, and carbon storage were, therefore, quantified and mapped
as the difference between the level of service (e.g. amount of air pollution reduced)
that occurs given the actual land cover composition (including green space), and the
level of service that would occur if the whole area were composed of 28% buildings
and 72% other manmade surfaces (a hypothetical scenario replacing the current
levels of greenspace with buildings and manmade surfaces to the same proportions
as existing artificial surface areas of the city). Neither the opportunities for cultural
services nor habitat provision for biodiversity were compared to a hypothetical land
cover as the modelling was based on proportion of the area that is suitable for
providing the services. That is, if greenspace did not exist the level of these services
would be zero.
Reduction of air pollution
The air pollution reduction model focuses on the amount of pollution removed over
and above that which would be removed in the absence of the greenspace
infrastructure for Sheffield’s two most problematic pollutants: nitrogen dioxide
(NO 2 ) and particulate matter (with a particle diameter of

were divided rather than subtracted in order to give equal weighting to the two
pollutants, concentrations of which occur over different orders of magnitude. Finally,
the mean of these two figures was taken to generate a single index of ecosystem
service production for each 500m grid square area. The land cover composition of
each polygon in the HECA map was used to calculate the deposition velocity, and
was multiplied by the area-weighted mean (derived from the 500m grid squares)
pollutant concentration to calculate the pollutant flux.
Storm water runoff reduction
Urbanisation replaces natural land covers with developed and often impermeable
surfaces such as buildings and roads. This reduces the amount of precipitation that is
intercepted and evapotranspired by vegetation. It will also reduce the infiltration
and storage capacity of the soil. This can cause a significant increase in surface flow.
The storm water runoff reduction model calculates the ability of the greenspace to
abstract more water than the hypothetical scenario, using the USDA-NRCS Soil
Conservancy Service's curve number (CN) method to estimate surface runoff
following a storm event. This method assigns a “curve number” to each area
according to its vegetation cover and soil type, describing its capacity to intercept
and abstract precipitation. When applied to a specified precipitation scenario, the
curve number can calculate the proportion of precipitation that runs off as surface
flow (USDA-NRCS 1986). The curve number method is suitable for application in
urban areas (USDA-NRCS 1986), and has been implemented in similar studies
(Whitford et al. (2001) and Tratalos et al. (2007)). The model uses the land cover
map and soils map (and associated soil texture data) as input. Curve numbers were
assigned from lists given in a USDA-NRCS technical report (USDA-NRCS 1986), using
previous implementations by Whitford et al. (2001) and Tratalos et al. (2007) as
guidance. Two rainfall event scenarios were designed: a ‘typical heavy rainfall’
scenario, representing a fairly common event in Sheffield, with 1.2cm rainfall and
soils not especially wet due to recent rainfall; and an ‘extreme rainfall’ event, based
on the June 2007 rainfall that caused extensive flooding in Sheffield, with 6cm
rainfall onto already saturated soils. For each scenario, the runoff volume per m 2 was
spatially assigned according to the land cover and soils maps, and from this value
was subtracted the runoff that would have occurred if each m 2 was covered by
artificial, impervious surfaces. This calculated the reduction in runoff due to natural
land covers. The average reduction in runoff from the two scenarios was used as the
quantification of the ecosystem service.
Carbon storage
Greenspaces vary in composition, and therefore, their capacity to sequester carbon.
The carbon storage model assesses the capacity for, and spatial pattern of, carbon
storage, using land cover based estimates of carbon biomass in different types of
vegetation, and estimates of the organic carbon content of soils from the NATMAP
soils map. Soils under manmade surfaces and buildings were assumed to have half
the carbon content that they would otherwise, because the development process
generally causes large losses of carbon (Pouyat, Yesilonis, & Nowak, 2006) (although
there is now emerging evidence that existing assumptions about urban soil carbon
may be open to question, see (Edmondson et al., 2012)). Soil carbon losses can occur
during development regardless of whether the soil is directly disturbed or not, due
to the loss of plant, microbial and earthworm biomass, which reduces inputs of
38

organic matter (the source of carbon) to the soil (Byrne, Bruns, & Kim, 2008). Direct
disturbance can also expose the deeper soil layer to conditions in which carbon is
likely to oxidise to the atmosphere (Jandl, Lindner, Bauwens, Baritz, Hagedorn et al.,
2007). To quantify the ecosystem service provided by natural land covers, an
estimate was also made of the carbon content of the different soil types when under
sealed surfaces. This second estimate was subtracted from the figure for actual
carbon storage.
Opportunities for cultural ecosystem services in public greenspaces
The model of access to opportunities for cultural ecosystem services in greenspace
describes the spatial availability of greenspace infrastructure to the general public.
The production of opportunities is calculated as the proportion of an area of interest
that is covered by land uses that are considered to provide such opportunities (e.g.
public parks, moorland, woodlands). The supply of opportunities was quantified
using the four distance-related greenspace provision standards (see Handley, Pauleit,
Slinn, Barber, Baker, Jones et al., 2003). Areas of publicly accessible greenspace were
identified from the HECA dataset. The land use map legend (Fig. 1) was studied in
order to identify whether areas of each category were likely to fulfil two
requirements: (i) that greenspace is a major component of that land use; and (ii) that
the greenspace is freely publicly accessible. These areas were identified on the land
use map and used to generate a map of publicly accessible greenspace. The
proportion of each area of interest meeting each of the standards was calculated, i.e.
within 300m of a 2ha greenspace, 2km of a 10ha greenspace, 5km of a 100ha
greenspace and 10km of a 500ha greenspace (Handley et al., 2003). These
proportions were summed and divided by four in order to calculate an index
quantifying this ecosystem service. The map in Figure 3.6 shows O or 1, rather than 4
levels of accessibility, because the HECA map was used to assign the basemap of
areas that are publically accessible. Areas of greenspace located only partially within,
or nearby to the boundaries of the study area were also included in generating these
proportions.
Provision of habitat for biodiversity
Biodiversity is thought to be critical to the production of many ecosystem processes,
services and benefits (Cardinale, Duffy, Gonzalez, Hooper, Perrings, Venail et al.,
2012; Mace, Norris & Fitter, 2011). Due to a lack of consistent and reliable records of
biodiversity at the scale required for the study area, we developed a land coverbased
metric for ecosystem service providing biodiversity. It describes the degree of
urbanisation and the variety of remnant natural habitats, similar to that of Whitford
et al. (2001). Urban development increases impermeable surfaces, splitting the
natural vegetation into smaller patches that may have low connectivity ( Bolger,
Suarez, Crooks, Morrison & Case, 2000; Crooks 2002). Greenspace management by
gardeners and landscape architects means that the remaining natural vegetation
may also be converted to different types of land cover, changing the availability of
some types of habitat (McKinney, 2006). Given this, three metrics, proportion of
area comprising of natural land covers, habitat diversity and natural land cover patch
connectivity, were chosen to reflect different components of these complex effects,
and then combined to produce a single indicator of the biodiversity potential of the
landscape.
39

Data inputs
Four spatial data inputs were required for the ecosystem service models, a land
cover map, land use map (South Yorkshire Historic Character GIS dataset for
calculating the provision of habitat for biodiversity service), soil map (LANDis
National Soil Map GIS dataset (NATMAP Vector) and associated soil attribute data
(SOILERIES and HORIZON data tables). The land cover map was made to suit the
requirements of the study and was a combination of data from the level two vector
version of the Land Cover Map 2000 (LCM 2000), and Ordnance Survey Mastermap
2008 topography layer. The latter was used to identify relatively homogeneous land
cover units as a basis for the tailored land cover map.
Above ground and topsoil carbon maps
Data on carbon storage in the soil and above ground were from the Natural England
and CEH natural capital maps (https://eip.ceh.ac.uk/naturalengland-ncmaps).
Forests and other vegetation sequester carbon. The carbon density of each nonwoodland
land cover type is estimated based on biomass conversion equations from
the scientific literature. Woodland carbon density is estimated using species and age
specific data. These were up-scaled using extent of each category from the Land
Cover Map 2007 (Henrys et al. 2016). Soil organic carbon also plays an important
role in soil function as an energy source for maintaining structure, resilience and
retaining water (NE, CEH soil carbon report). It is also an important foundation of a
number of provisioning and regulating ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient cycling,
primary production, climate regulation). Soil carbon data is derived from soil samples
collected in 591 km squares across England and then extrapolated to other areas
using statistical analyses (Henrys et al. 2012a).
Non-spatial quantification of ecosystem services
Carbon sequestration
Carbon sequestration from the woodland areas in the SL area were calculated
following the UK Woodland Carbon Code methodology and look-up tables
(Woodland Carbon Code 2012a,b). The species mix of deciduous and coniferous
woodland was taken from the Forest Inventory for Yorkshire and the Humber (2002).
They are predominantly corsican pine, sitka spruce and larch, and oak, beech, birch,
ash and sycamore. The average yield class was used for each species, as well as an
average spacing between trees, and it was assumed that deciduous woodland was
not thinned, but coniferous areas were. The sequestration rates were averaged over
a 60 year period for coniferous plantations and 100 years for the deciduous
woodlands (these being the time periods after which they are harvested). The
average annual sequestration rates were then multiplied by the area of each
woodland type and added together to give the total sequestration estimate for
woodland at the site.
Timber production
The physical flow of timber production was estimated using the average yield classes
of the woodland types present, as outlined above. The physical flow of this service
was calculated by multiplying the yield class by the area of each woodland type.
40

Air pollution regulation
We measured the ability of the woodland and grassland habitats in the SLLP to
absorb two key pollutants, particulate matter ≤10μm in diameter (PM 10 ) and sulphur
dioxide (SO 2 ). Quantifying the physical flow of the air quality regulation service
provided by the woodland and grassland was based on the absorption calculation in
Powe & Willis (2004) and the method in ONS (2016). The deposition rates for PM 10
and SO 2 in coniferous woodland, deciduous woodland and grassland were taken
from Powe & Willis (2004). The average background pollution concentration in 2015
for PM 10 and SO 2 were calculated using Defra data (Modelling of Ambient Air Quality
(MAAQ) https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/data/pcm-data). The surface area index of
coniferous and deciduous woodlands in on-leaf and off-leaf periods was taken from
Powe & Willis (2004). The proportion of dry days (rainfall

References
Bolger, D. T., Suarez, A.V., Crooks, K.R., Morrison, S.A., Case, T.J., 2000. Arthropods in
urban habitat fragments in southern California: area, age, and edge effects. Ecol.
Applic. 10: 1230-1248.
Byrne, L. B., Bruns, M.A., Kim, K.C., 2008. Ecosystem properties of urban land covers
at the aboveground–belowground interface. Ecosystems. 11: 1065-1077.
Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani,
A., Mace, G.M., Tilman, D., Wardles, D.A., Kinzig, A.P., Daily, G.C., Loreau, M., Grace,
J.B., Larigauderie, A., Srivastava, D.S., Naeem, S., 2012. Biodiversity loss and its
impact on humanity. Nature. 486: 59-67.
Crooks, K. R., 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat
fragmentation. Conserv. Biol. 16: 488-502.
Edmondson, J., Davies, Z.G, McHugh, N., Gaston, K.J., Leake, J.R., 2012. Organic
carbon hidden in urban ecosystems. Sci. Rep. 2: 936.
Elleker, A., 2009. Air quality updating and screening assessment for Sheffield City
Council. Sheffield City Council, Sheffield.
Forestry Commission 2002. National inventory of woodland and trees England.
Regional report for Yorkshire and the Humber. FC.
Handley, J., Pauleit, S., Slinn, P., Barber, A., Baker, M. Jones, C., S. Lindley, 2003.
Accessible natural green space standards in towns and cities: a review and toolkit for
their implementation. English Nature research reports number 526: English Nature,
Peterborough, UK.
Henrys, P.A.; Keith, A.; Wood, C.M. 2016. Model estimates of aboveground carbon
for Great Britain. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre.
http://doi.org/10.5285/9be652e7-d5ce-44c1-a5fc-8349f76f5f5c
Henrys, P.A., Keith, A.M., Robinson, D.A., Emmett, B.A. 2012a. Model estimates of
topsoil carbon [Countryside Survey]. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre.
http://doi.org/10.5285/9e4451f8-23d3-40dc-9302-73e30ad3dd76
Holt, A.R., Mears, M., Maltby, L. & Warren P. 2015. Understanding spatial patterns in
the production of multiple urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 16: 33-46.
Jandl, R., Lindner, M., Vesterdal, L. Bauwens, B. Baritz, R. Hagedorn, F. Johnson, D.W.
Minkkinen, K., Byrne, K.A., 2007. How strongly can forest management influence soil
carbon sequestration? Geoderma, 137: 253-268.
Mace, G.M., Norris, K., Fitter, A.H., 2011. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a
multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27: 19-26.
42

McKinney, M. L., 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol.
Conserv. 127: 247-260.
Morton, D., Rowland, C., Wood, C., Meek, L., Marston, C., Smith, G., Simpson, I.C.
(2011) Final report for LCM2007 – the new UK land cover map. CS Technical Report
No 11/07 NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology 112pp. (CEH project number:
C03259).
Natural Capital Committee 2014. The state of natural capital: restoring our natural
assets. UK.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2016. Annex 1: Background and methods for
experimental pollution removal estimates. UK National Accounts.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/methodologies/annex1b
ackgroundandmethodsforexperimentalpollutionremovalestimates.
Pouyat, R. V., Yesilonis, I.D., Nowak, D.J., 2006. Carbon storage by urban soils in the
United States. J. Environ. Qual. 35: 1566-1575.
Powe, N., A., & Willis, K.G. 2004. Mortality and morbidity benefits of air pollution
(SO2 and PM10) absorption attributable to woodland in Britain. Journal of
Environmental Management, 70: 119-128.
Sheffield City Council, 2008a. Air Quality Progress Report August 2008. Sheffield City
Council, Sheffield.
Sheffield City Council, 2008b. Detailed Assessment for PM10. Sheffield City Council,
Sheffield.
Tratalos, J., Fuller, R.A. Warren, P.H. Davies, R.G., Gaston K.J., 2007. Urban form,
biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landsc. and Urban Plan., 83: 308-317.
USDA-NRCS. 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds. TR55. United States
Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service - Conservation
Engineering Division.
UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment:
Synthesis of the Key Findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
Whitford, V., Ennos, A.R., Handley J.F., 2001. “City form and natural process” -
indicators for the ecological performance of urban areas and their application to
Merseyside, UK. Land. Urban Plan. 57: 91-103.
Woodland Carbon Code 2012a. Carbon Lookup Tables V1.5, Forestry Commission.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-8jue9t.
43

Woodland Carbon Code 2012b. Estimating woodland carbon sequestration from the
Carbon Lookup Tables, Version 1.4, Forestry Commission.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-8jue9t.
44

Appendix 5
Ecological Assessment

Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership
Area
Development Phase Ecology Report
Author: Jon Goodrick BSc MCIEEM
j.goodrick@wildsheffield.com

Quality Assurance
PROJECT
NUMBER
PROJECT
NAME
0606.17
Development Phase Ecology Report – Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership Area
SITE
LOCATION
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
FILE
NAME
0606.17_Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership report FINAL.docx
VERSION Version 01
DATE 30 th April 2018
PRINCIPAL AUTHORS CHECKED BY APPROVED BY
Jon Goodrick Adele Harrison Jon Goodrick
0606.17 30/04/2018 1

Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 4
2 INTRODUCTION TO THE AREA ............................................................................ 4
3 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS – HABITATS ............................................... 5
3.1 INTERNATIONALLY, NATIONALLY AND LOCALLY DESIGNATED WILDLIFE SITES .............................................. 6
3.2 HABITATS ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.3 DEVELOPMENT STAGE HABITAT SURVEY ...................................................................................................... 9
3.4 STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HABITATS ........................................................................................ 23
4 BASELINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS – SPECIES ................................................ 25
4.1 BARN OWL .................................................................................................................................................. 25
4.2 BAT SPECIES ................................................................................................................................................ 28
4.3 GOSHAWK ................................................................................................................................................... 35
4.4 NIGHTJAR .................................................................................................................................................... 38
4.5 OSPREY ....................................................................................................................................................... 41
4.6 OTTER ......................................................................................................................................................... 44
4.7 UPLAND WADING BIRDS – CURLEW ............................................................................................................ 48
4.8 WATER VOLE ............................................................................................................................................... 50
4.9 WHITE-CLAWED CRAYFISH .......................................................................................................................... 54
4.10 WOODLAND BIRDS – PIED AND SPOTTED FLYCATCHER, WILLOW TIT ........................................................... 58
5 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................................... 62
5.1 MOORS AND THE PDNPA ............................................................................................................................ 62
5.2 FOREST IN THE VALLEYS .............................................................................................................................. 62
5.3 WILDLIFE SITES ............................................................................................................................................ 63
5.4 CURRENT WATER BODIES ............................................................................................................................ 63
5.5 SPECIES ....................................................................................................................................................... 63
6 REFERENCE LIST AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................... 65
7 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................ 67
7.1 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ......................................................................................................................... 67
0606.17 30/04/2018 2

Tables
TABLE 3-1 APPROX. AREAS OF HABITATS RECORDED WITHIN THE SLLP AREA AS INDICATED BY ERSOY, 2017 .................... 7
TABLE 4-1 BAT SPECIES RECORDED WITHIN THE SHEFFIELD LAKELAND LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP AREA ........................... 31
Figures
FIGURE 2-1 VIEW OF HEATHLAND AND CONIFER PLANTATION - MIDHOPE RESERVOIR (J RILEY, 2017) ............................. 4
FIGURE 3-1 SHEFFIELD LAKELAND LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP AREA ............................................................................. 5
FIGURE 3-2 INTERNATIONALLY, NATIONALLY AND LOCALLY DESIGNATED WILDLIFE SITES ................................................ 6
FIGURE 3-3 HABITATS RECORDED WITHIN THE SLLP AREA AS INDICATED BY ERSOY, 2017 ............................................. 8
FIGURE 3-4 LOCATION OF SITES SELECTED FOR DETAILED HABITAT SURVEY DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE .................. 9
FIGURE 3-5 MIDHOPE RESERVOIR PHASE 1 HABITAT SURVEY PLAN 2017 ................................................................. 10
FIGURE 3-6 ACID GRASSLAND AND HEATHER AT MIDHOPE RESERVOIR (J RILEY, 2017) ................................................ 11
FIGURE 3-7 NEW ZEALAND PYGMYWEED AT MIDHOPE RESERVOIR (J RILEY, 2017) .................................................... 12
FIGURE 3-8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MIDHOPE RESERVOIR BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT .......................................... 13
FIGURE 3-9 HAMMOND’S FIELD NATURE RESERVE NVC PLAND (P EADES, 2017) ...................................................... 14
FIGURE 3-10 HAMMOND’S FIELD NATURE RESERVE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT IDEAS (P EADES, 2018) ............................ 15
FIGURE 3-11 AGDEN BOG NATURE RESERVE NVC PLAN (P EADES, 2018) ................................................................ 18
FIGURE 3-12 AGDEN BOG NATURE RESERVE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT RECOMMENDATION (P EADES 2018) .................. 20
FIGURE 3-13 2010 WYMING BROOK NATURE RESERVE HABITAT PLAN ..................................................................... 21
FIGURE 3-14 2012 FOX HAGG NATURE RESERVE HABITAT PLAN ............................................................................. 22
FIGURE 3-15 PLAN SHOWING AREAS OF WOODLAND ALREADY WITHIN SITES DESIGNATED FOR THEIR WILDLIFE
VALUE .................................................................................................................................................. 24
FIGURE 4-1 BARN OWL (RUSSEL HAGUE PHOTOGRAPHY) ....................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 4-2 SLLP KEY HABITAT AREAS FOR BARN OWL ........................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 4-3 BROWN LONG EARED BAT IN HAND (P LIPTROT, 2017) ........................................................................ 28
FIGURE 4-4 HABITAT SUITABILITY MODELLING SUITABILITY FOR BAT SPECIES .............................................................. 29
FIGURE 4-5 WHISKERED BAT (T MARSHAL, 2017) ............................................................................................... 30
FIGURE 4-6 GOSHAWK (N KENNTNER) ............................................................................................................... 35
FIGURE 4-7 KEY HABITAT TYPES FOR GOSHAWK WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP AREA ......................................... 36
FIGURE 4-8 NIGHTJAR (NEIL ALDRIDGE) .............................................................................................................. 38
FIGURE 4-9 SLLP KEY HABITAT TYPES FOR NIGHTJAR ............................................................................................. 39
FIGURE 4-10 OSPREY (J ROGERSON) .................................................................................................................. 41
FIGURE 4-11 WATERBODIES WITHIN THE SLLP AND BEYOND .................................................................................. 42
FIGURE 4-12 OTTERS (M HOLLAND, 2017) ........................................................................................................ 44
FIGURE 4-13 OTTER RECORDS AND POTENTIALLY SUITABLE HABITAT WITHIN THE SLLP AREA ....................................... 45
FIGURE 4-14 CURLEW (R MILLER, 2017) ........................................................................................................... 48
FIGURE 4-15 SLLP AREAS OF KEY HABITAT FOR UPLAND WADING BIRDS .................................................................. 49
FIGURE 4-16 PHOTOGRAPH OF WATER VOLE AT REDMIRES RESERVOIR (G BADHAM, 2018) ........................................ 50
FIGURE 4-17 RECORDS OF WATER VOLE WITHIN THE SLLP AREA ............................................................................. 51
FIGURE 4-18 WHITE CLAWED CRAYFISH (A KIRKLAND, 2017) ................................................................................ 54
FIGURE 4-19 WHITE CLAWED CRAYFISH RECORDS WITHIN THE SLLP AREA ............................................................... 55
FIGURE 4-20 WILLOW TIT (A JONES, 2015) ........................................................................................................ 58
FIGURE 4-21 PIED FLYCATCHER (M HOLLAND, 2017) ........................................................................................... 58
FIGURE 4-22 SPOTTED FLYCATCHER (A LEWIS) ..................................................................................................... 59
FIGURE 4-23 KEY HABITATS FOR WOODLAND BIRDS WITHIN THE SLLP AREA ............................................................. 60
FIGURE 5-1 VIEW OVER MIDHOPE RESERVOIR (K TOMKINS, 2017) ......................................................................... 62
FIGURE 5-2 BARN OWL FORAGING OVER ROUGH GRASSLAND (M ROBINSON, 2016) ................................................. 63
FIGURE 5-3 WATER VOLE FORAGING (A RAMSEY, 2009) ....................................................................................... 64
0606.17 30/04/2018 3

1 Introduction
Wildscapes CIC Ltd were commissioned by the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership (SLLP)
to produce an Ecological Baseline report for key habitats and species priorities identified
within the region. The work is designed to facilitate the creation and development of projects
for the delivery phase of the Landscape Partnership project. In particular we were asked to
focus on the creation of Project 9, Supporting Species.
2 Introduction to the Area
Set between the moorland of the Peak District National Park and the western edge of the city
of Sheffield, the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership area includes a wide variety of
managed habitats reflecting its industrial and rural heritage. In the west are open moorland
slopes interspersed with drystone walls and historic hill farm buildings. The upland valley
slopes contain ancient clough woodlands interspersed with commercial forestry plantations.
The slopes include upland streams that lead into managed reservoirs before flowing into
tributaries to the River Don. The central area of the SLLP area includes large expanses of
managed farmland with arable fields interspersed with pasture, rough grassland and
woodland copse. To the east, the landscape turns to urban fringe with more evidence of the
industrial past through the “steel valley”.
Figure 2-1 View of Heathland and Conifer Plantation - Midhope Reservoir (J Riley, 2017)
0606.17 30/04/2018 4

3 Baseline Ecological Conditions – Habitats
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area (as shown in Figure 3-1) covers
approximately 14890ha
Figure 3-1 Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
0606.17 30/04/2018 5

3.1 Internationally, Nationally and Locally Designated Wildlife Sites
Approximately, 43% of the SLLP area has some form of wildlife or habitat designation. The
western moorland is designated as SAC (4915.65ha), SPA (5099.98ha) and SSSI (5174.86ha),
whilst the eastern habitats include a network of Local Wildlife Sites (1313.53ha), of which
121.44ha are managed Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust Nature Reserves.
Figure 3-2 Internationally, Nationally and Locally Designated Wildlife Sites
0606.17 30/04/2018 6

3.2 Habitats
Wildscapes approached Dr Ebru Ersoy for permission to utilise the work undertaken for her
Thesis project (Ersoy, 2017) to support the SLLP project. The purpose of her thesis was as
follows:
“The main purpose of this research is to focus on critically examining different ways of defining
green and ecological networks and their functionality for biodiversity and people in the case of
Sheffield, which were derived from different theoretical and professional perspectives
(planning and ecology), and to explore the potential for different approaches to define
ecological / green networks.” (Ersoy, 2017).
One of the key outputs for the thesis was a detailed habitat survey plan and list of habitat
definitions going into more relevant detail than the standard OS Land Cover Map (Ersoy, 2017).
This map has been used as the baseline information for all of the ecology work included within
this report.
The following habitats are recorded within the landscape partnership area as shown within
Figure 3-3:
Table 3-1 Approx. Areas of Habitats Recorded within the SLLP Area as Indicated by Ersoy, 2017
HABITAT
AREA IN % HABITAT AREA IN %
HECTARES
HECTARES
Amenity Grassland 310 2 Arable 535 4
Broadleaved Woodland 1546 10 Conifer woodland 708 5
Connected Structures 27

Figure 3-3 Habitats Recorded within the SLLP Area as Indicated by Ersoy, 2017
0606.17 30/04/2018 8

3.3 Development Stage Habitat Survey
Four sites were selected by the steering group during the development stage for detailed
ecological survey.
Figure 3-4 Location of Sites Selected for Detailed Habitat Survey during the Development Phase
0606.17 30/04/2018 9

3.3.1 Midhope Reservoir
Midhope Reservoir has been highlighted by Yorkshire Water and the SLLP steering group to be
a target site for biodiversity enhancement in the delivery stage of SLLP. Wildscapes undertook
a Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Wildscapes CIC Ltd, 2017) of the site, which is included within the
Appendix to this document.
Figure 3-5 Midhope Reservoir Phase 1 Habitat Survey Plan 2017
0606.17 30/04/2018 10

The survey report identified a number of key habitats and the following recommendations for
further management were made:
There are several areas of acid dry dwarf shrub heath, semi-improved acid grassland and dry
heath/acid grassland mosaic on site that should be maintained and/or restored to prevent
succession to scrub.
Figure 3-6 Acid grassland and heather at Midhope Reservoir (J Riley, 2017)
Some of the conifer plantation should be retained, aiming to keep a variety of age profiles and
stand mixes. For example, plantations where the trees are tall with open ground flora beneath
provide good nesting and hunting habitat for raptors; nightjar are known to use areas of clear
fell and young conifer plantations up to 15 years old for nesting.
Some of the denser plantation areas should be opened up by a mixture of selective thinning,
the creation of open glades, or potentially by clear felling if the trees are ready to be harvested.
The land opened up in this way is likely to revert to heather moorland or, in the wetter areas,
there may be acid flushes or marshy grassland. This will require regular management to ensure
that the open areas are not invaded by bracken, rhododendron, bramble or pioneer scrub
species.
Increasing the amount of native broad-leaved trees by interplanting thinned areas, replanting
clear felled areas or allowing native trees to arrive naturally will provide additional habitat for
wildlife.
Invasive species such as rhododendron should be managed appropriately, targeting areas
where they are most likely to make a difference to the quality of the habitat e.g. stopping
bracken from encroaching on the heathland, or removing dense bramble from the network of
watercourses.
New Zealand Pygmyweed is an invasive species that grows around the damp margins of
waterways and in water up to 3m deep. It forms very dense stands which out-compete all
other aquatic vegetation, eliminate native flora and create a poorer ecosystem for
invertebrates, fish and amphibians. Its three growth forms (terrestrial, emergent and
submerged) grow throughout the year and there is no dormant period. Pygmyweed is
notoriously difficult to eradicate but in order to make control of the species downstream more
effective, it should be attempted here. The options include chemical control or
0606.17 30/04/2018 11

mechanical/manual control; chemical control is more suitable as mechanical disturbance risks
fragments entering the watercourse and spreading downstream. Sites where pygmyweed has
been removed need to be monitored regularly for at least 5 years post eradication. It would
also be important to check the watercourses/reservoirs upstream of Midhope to ensure that
pygmyweed is not present and spreading from further up the water system.
Figure 3-7 New Zealand Pygmyweed at Midhope Reservoir (J Riley, 2017)
The wet flushes, manmade drains and ponds provide an additional habitat type within the
predominantly wooded area. They should be maintained and possibly extended, for example
additional ponds could be created to extend wetland habitat.
A diverse range of fungi were noted during the survey. A targeted fungi survey could be
commissioned to take place in the autumn to determine the value of the habitat for fungi.
It is highly likely that the area will be well used by foraging bats, and a bat dropping was located
in Compartment J. Two static Anabat bat detectors were sited in the north and northeast of
the site for a night in late August; although the data has not yet been analysed, it is certain
that bats are on site and further surveys and management for bats should be carried out as
appropriate.
Public access to the east of the site is via way of a public footpath, but the south/west of the
site is only accessible informally. To open up the site for visitors, a footpath could be created
to access this side of the reservoir. Some areas of the site should remain inaccessible however,
to protect wildlife from interference. Access to the shoreline should be discouraged due to
biosecurity and disturbance concerns, as well as the problem of litter and inappropriate uses
e.g. target practice.
As well as opening up physical access, interpretation could be put in place which could range
from the creation of a nature trail for the general public with information available on the
internet, interpretation signage, through to the building of a visitor centre to provide the
appropriate literature, help and advice to educate visitors and enhance their visit to the site.
Interpretation will encourage members of the general public to become interested in wildlife
and nature, if not already so.
0606.17 30/04/2018 12

Further to this, Wildscapes CIC produced an outline recommendations plan for habitat
management at Midhope Reservoir:
Figure 3-8 Recommendations for Midhope Reservoir Biodiversity Enhancement
0606.17 30/04/2018 13

3.3.2 Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve
Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve has recently been taken into management by Sheffield and
Rotherham Wildlife Trust, which is currently developing a management plan. The vegetation
of Hammond’s Field has not been surveyed in detail before, and consequently a baseline
survey was commissioned in order to inform possibilities for management and monitoring to
be undertaken within the SLLP delivery phase.
Wildscapes CIC Ltd commissioned Dr Phil Eades to undertake the survey. His report is included
within the Appendix to this document (Eades, 2018).
“Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve is managed by Sheffield Wildlife Trust, and is currently
grazed by sheep as part of a larger grazing unit: 40 sheep were present at the time of survey.
Some signs of rabbit grazing were also evident. A scrape about 40 m across was constructed
perhaps 20 years ago, with shallow peaty margins that are becoming colonised by soft rush,
and a gently sloping drawdown zone with bare soil that is becoming colonised by mat grass
and purple moor-grass. Roughly two-thirds of the scrape was occupied by open water at the
time of survey, partly filled by the stand of bulrush.
The Reserve is bounded by intact drystone walls on all four sides, with gates opening at the
south-west, north-west and north-east corners. The field has previously been drained in a
herring-bone pattern, although many of the ditches appear to have been infilled, particularly
on the upslope, north-western side. The south-eastern part of the main axial ditch has not been
infilled, though it was dry at the time of survey, and it leads directly to a brick structure at the
lowest, south-eastern corner of the field. The structure is partially covered, but within it a pipe
can be seen entering from the axial ditch, and a second pipe exiting it to the south, presumably
feeding into a drainage ditch in the field to the south. This suggests that there may still be
intact tile drains beneath the main axial drain.
Near the south-western corner of the field there is a broad, rush-filled ditch running north-west
to south-east, leading into a broad and partly water-filled ditch that runs along the southern
boundary, and exits at the south-eastern corner of the site.” (Eades, 2018).
Figure 3-9 Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve NVC Pland (P Eades, 2017)
0606.17 30/04/2018 14

“Hammond’s Field is probably most important in terms of providing habitat for wading birds,
amphibians, and invertebrates such as dragonflies. It is also an example of relatively
unimproved wet pasture of the moorland fringe, and as such, supports vegetation of the
‘Purple Moor-Grass & Rush Pasture’ Priority Habitat Type (PHT). Other important habitat types
include small patches of acidic fen and swamp, which are considered to be forms of Lowland
Fen PHT.
Figure 3-10 Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve habitat enhancement ideas (P Eades, 2018)
Ditch infilling and scrape construction have been undertaken in the recent past, in an attempt
to retain water on the site and improve habitat for wading birds, and continued sheep grazing
has undoubtedly helped to provide a range of short swards and taller tussocky areas that also
benefit wading birds. The intensity of sheep grazing appears appropriate, but is unlikely to
reduce soft rush dominance in the southern part of the site. That part of the site would benefit
from being opened up somewhat, both to increase botanical diversity, and to increase the area
suited to nesting and foraging of ground-nesting birds. Because soft rush is not very palatable
to livestock, this would probably require the rushes to be topped using a brush cutter. Creeping
thistle is quite abundant in the northern part of the site, perhaps due to disturbance from
infilling the ditches, and its spread should be monitored, and if necessary controlled.
Other possibilities for habitat enhancement include installing dams at the south-eastern end
of the axial ditch, allowing pools to form and provide habitat for amphibians and invertebrates.
There may also be scope for construction of one or two more small scrapes in the wetter
southern part of the site, which would benefit birds, amphibians and invertebrates, and might
encourage the development of additional areas of acidic fen vegetation.
It would be worth checking for the presence of tile drains beneath the unfilled dry ditch(es),
and if they are present, make efforts to break them, so that they no longer take water off site.
0606.17 30/04/2018 15

If the adjacent landowner is amenable, water levels in the southern boundary ditch could be
raised by installing dams, to increase the extent of open water habitat in the field. However,
this would be likely to cause the adjacent field to the south to become wetter. The banks of
flooded ditches (and new scrapes) would need to be engineered to be gently sloping, so as not
to create a hazard to livestock.” (Eades, 2018).
Hammond’s field Nature Reserve has been targeted for inclusion within 9 Supporting Species
Water vole project.
0606.17 30/04/2018 16

3.3.3 Agden Bog Nature Reserve
Agden Bog Nature Reserve has recently been taken into management by Sheffield and
Rotherham Wildlife Trust, which is currently developing a management plan. However, the
vegetation of Agden Bog has not been surveyed in detail for at least 25 years, and
consequently a baseline survey was commissioned, in order to inform possibilities for
management and monitoring to be undertaken within the SLLP delivery phase.
Wildscapes CIC Ltd commissioned Dr Phil Eades to undertake the survey. His report is included
within the Appendix to this document (Eades, 2018).
“Agden Bog has long been recognised as an important site in a local context, and it has been
studied in one form or another for many years. It is particularly interesting because of the
juxtaposition of acidic base-poor wetland vegetation and high pH base-rich wetland types,
which appear to have developed where the lower valley side is irrigated by seepages and
springs of varying hydrochemistry. The site is underlain by a mixture of Midgley Grit sandstone,
and mudstone, siltstone and sandstone of the Millstone Grit Group, and a fault runs along the
centre of the valley. Presumably there must be some calcareous influence from the mudstones
or siltstones, and faulting has encouraged the outflow of water from these layers. As a
consequence of this contrasting hydrochemistry, the site supports a range of wetland plants,
some of which are quite scarce in this area.
Agden Bog was sampled by Shaw and Wheeler (1991) as part of a wider study of herbaceous
base-rich fens, who noted that it would certainly deserve SSSI status. It has been used as a
location for undergraduate field study by the University of Sheffield, and the butterwort
population was apparently monitored for some time by Sorby Natural History Society, although
no data have been available from that study.
Features of particular importance are marked on Figure 3-11, and discussed below.” (Eades,
2018).
Bog Vegetation
“The upper basin area is notable, both for its abundance and variety of Sphagnum bog-mosses
and the extensive carpet of bog asphodel, and for the deep and undisturbed peat that provides
a valuable palaeo-ecological resource. Bogs, and the peat that they hold, are also important
as a carbon store.
It is not clear how this type of bog fits into the Priority Habitat system, being neither raised bog
nor blanket bog. However, it is clearly an important habitat and vegetation type, and should
be recognised as such.
Base-rich Fen
The base-rich seepage areas support vegetation with an affinity to the M10 mire community,
which, whilst quite widespread in the northern and western uplands of the UK, is very
uncommon in the Peak District, and is present at only one or two other sites in the Sheffield
area (Rickett’s Field, and possibly Corker Walls). This kind of vegetation is an example of the
Lowland Fen PHT, and more importantly, is a form of Alkaline Fen, an EU Habitats Directive
‘Annex 1’ habitat.
A quadrat sample within one of the base-rich mire areas that was recorded by Wheeler & Shaw
in about 1989, supported a similar range of plant species to that recorded during the present
survey, although notably common butterwort (Pinguicula vulgaris), which was found at that
time, was not recorded in 2017.
0606.17 30/04/2018 17

Figure 3-11 Agden bog Nature Reserve NVC plan (P Eades, 2018)
Species-rich Fen-meadow
This kind of vegetation is notable because species-rich fen-meadow vegetation is not very
widespread in the UK, and is generally vulnerable to drainage and agricultural ‘improvement’
of pastures and meadows. It sits within the Purple Moor-Grass & Rush Pasture PHT, and more
importantly is considered to be an example of the EU Habitats Directive ‘Annex 1’ habitat
‘Molinia Meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae)’.”.
(Eades, 2018)
0606.17 30/04/2018 18

Wet Heath
“Agden Bog supports a strip of M15 wet heath vegetation, close to the upper edge of the
seepage line that runs more-or-less along the eastern boundary. Rodwell (1991) describes M15
wet heath vegetation as generally a western and northern community, often representing a
seral intermediate between dry heath and blanket mire, or marking poorly-drained sections of
undulating areas of dry heath and acid grassland, and it includes vegetation that is transitional
to acidic fens. In the Peak District wet heath is generally found on thin peaty ground adjacent
to blanket bog, and examples such as this on lower ground in the moorland fringe are not very
common.
Wet heath is both a Priority Habitat Type, and an Annex 1 habitat: ‘Northern Atlantic wet
heaths with Erica tetralix’.
Scarce Plant Species
Agden Bog is also important for a number of locally scarce plant species. Many of these are
associated with the base-rich seepages and adjacent flushed ground, including butterwort,
which has not been seen at the site for some years. Also important are the abundant bog
asphodel, Sphagnum bog-mosses, cranberry and sundew that are found on the upper bog area,
and a patch of common cow-wheat in an area of dry woodland close to the main gate.
Management Recommendations
Grazing the site with hardy cattle in summer months at the current intensity should be
continued, and efforts should be made to encourage cattle grazing into the rush-dominated
areas, in order to open up the vegetation and increase its diversity. One approach could be to
top the rushes with a brush-cutter in early June, removing the cut material.
The bog basin at the northern end of the site appears not to be grazed. In the absence of
grazing it will probably be necessary to carry out regular scrub control of birch and bramble on
the margins.
Depending upon the results of future vegetation monitoring, it may be necessary to control
bracken if it is found to be expanding its cover, or increasing in density, in the wetland parts of
the site. Because of the current limited extent of bracken in these areas, it would hopefully be
possible to control it by hand without the use of herbicide.” (Eades, 2018).
0606.17 30/04/2018 19

Figure 3-12 Agden Bog Nature Reserve Habitat Enhancement Recommendation (P Eades 2018)
0606.17 30/04/2018 20

3.3.4 Wyming Brook and Fox Hagg Nature Reserve
Wyming Brook and Fox Hagg Nature Reserve is under the management of the Sheffield and
Rotherham Willdife Trust who are currently developing a management plan. However, the
vegetation of the reserve has not been surveyed in detail for 8 years, and consequently a
baseline survey was commissioned, in order to inform possibilities for management and
monitoring to be undertaken within the SLLP delivery phase. Due to the delay in
commissioning, the survey was unable to be undertaken in the recommend survey period for
woodland in 2017 and as a result is being undertaken in April and May 2018. The survey report
will be issued as an addendum to this report.
Figure 3-13 2010 Wyming Brook Nature reserve Habitat plan
0606.17 30/04/2018 21

Figure 3-14 2012 Fox Hagg Nature reserve Habitat plan
0606.17 30/04/2018 22

3.4 Strategic Recommendations for Habitats
Wildscapes CIC Ltd were asked to consider ecological issues at the strategic scale in particular
the long term impacts of changes in management proposed by major landowners.
3.4.1 Natural Flood Risk Management
Natural Flood Risk Management will be a key aim of the SLLP project to help alleviate future
flood risk for the city of Sheffield as a result of climate change, reducing the need for large
scale engineering solutions which often result in detrimental effects to the natural
watercourse. The baseline ecosystems services report commissioned within the development
stage of the SLLP bid (Natural Capital Solutions, 2018) identifies a number of key opportunities
for NFM which offer distinct cross over for biodiversity enhancement and in particular to meet
many of the conservation objectives for species included within the 9 Supporting species brief.
These include:
Woodland planting for water retention - woodland is a key habitat within the SLLP area
and encouraging the “gapping” in or extension of existing woodland would increase
both connectivity and available foraging habitat for species within the landscape.
However, there should be some caution when choosing planting areas, loss of rough
grassland or meadow to woodland would present a negative impact on species such
as barn owl that are already suffering from declining habitat availability.
Restoring flood plain features to hold winter flows– this offers a distinct opportunity
to increase the available foraging habitat for species such as wading birds and otter.
However, again the site proposed for flooding need to be considered carefully to avoid
damaging important habitats.
Influencing the management of, and restoring peat bog – this offers opportunities for
NFM but also for the protection and enhancement of unique habitats and habitats. As
stated within the ecosystems services report (Natural Capital Solutions, 2018),
collaboration with other conservation partnerships will be vital to achieving the
necessary flood alleviation to avoid the need for intrusive downstream engineered
flood defences.
3.4.2 Woodland Management
Sheffield City Council and Yorkshire Water both hold large commercial plantation woodlands
within the SLLP area. Both have developed independent woodland management strategies
based around commercial timber production, but also long term recreation and species
conservation targets. The Woodland Heart project proposed within the SLLP offers a distinct
opportunity to strategically plan the management of woodland for both wildlife and
commercial interests in the long term. Linking up the two partner land holdings and increasing
the connectivity of woodlands within the landscapes should be a key aim for the project,
however if this is going to a successful strategy for going forward, the strategy needs to
balance the increasing need for recreational space close to the city with needs for quiet
undisturbed areas for wildlife. As a result of this, all of the key species projects within the 9
Supporting Species project have an advisory role to the Woodland Heart project.
0606.17 30/04/2018 23

Figure 3-15 Plan Showing Areas of Woodland Already within Sites Designated for their Wildlife Value
0606.17 30/04/2018 24

4 Baseline Ecological Conditions – Species
The following species/species groups were targeted for detailed work within the development
stage.
Figure 4-1 Barn owl (Russel Hague Photography)
4.1 Barn Owl
Barn owl Tyto Alba is a highly charismatic species and an icon of the traditional British farmed
landscape. The species are extremely efficient hunters often seen silently gliding over rough
grassland fields or field margins, scouring the landscape for their favoured prey of voles or
mice. Their reliance on this habitat and associated traditional agricultural buildings historically
left them vulnerable in the era of modernised farming methods.
4.1.1 National Status
There are currently 3-5000 breeding pairs resident within the UK with up to 25000 birds
overwintering (Nature Counts, 2018). National trends are positive, leading to the species now
being listed as Green status by the RSPB. However, this is a recent success story; populations
underwent a decline of 25-50% up to 1990 as a result of changing farming practices and illegal
activity. Due to the nocturnal nature of the species, data is still patchy and as a result, the
species is not included within the national farmland bird decline figures used by DEFRA.
4.1.2 Sheffield Status
The population has declined more steeply within the Sheffield area than nationally with a
greater than 60% decline in both occupancy and confirmed breeding (Wood & Hill, 2013). The
local population was estimated to be 8 to 15 pairs in 2008 (Wood & Hill, 2013).
0606.17 30/04/2018 25

4.1.3 Significance of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
The majority of the breeding pairs within the Sheffield area are now found to the east and
south of the city. However, there are a pairs known to be present in the SLLP area. In particular,
the area around Low Bradfield is known to be a successful area.
The key habitat for this species, rough grassland, accounts for approx. 14.25km 2 (as shown
within Figure 4-1). Breeding pairs typically require 20-25km 2 of suitable habitat. It should be
noted that this plan excludes field margins and woodland edge habitat, the inclusion of which
will increase the area of available habitat for the species.
4.1.4 Key Threats / Opportunities within the SLLP Area
The threats within the SLLP area are likely to be similar to those within the wider Sheffield
area. Much of the 1975-2008 decline in numbers is likely to be as a result of change in
intensification of agricultural practices and the loss of suitable breeding sites (traditional stone
barns) (Nature Counts, 2018).
Much of the remaining suitable foraging habitat (as shown in Figure 4-1) is composed of
tenanted farms under the ownership of Sheffield City Council. There have been recent
examples of long term tenancies ending and SCC being unable to find new tenants. These land
holdings have then been bought by larger estates and following the sale, the land has been
ploughed, thus rendering it of limited suitability for barn owl.
Barn owls, as an iconic species and one closely associated with the rural landscape, offer an
excellent opportunity for public engagement with the SLLP project as a whole. This offers both
opportunities for engagement with the general public but also with key land holders within
the region.
4.1.5 Development Stage Survey
The Sheffield Ecology Unit, Sheffield Bird Study Group, Peak District Raptor Monitoring Group
and Barn owl Trust were approached for records within the SLLP area. However, due to the
sensitivity of these species records (schedule 1 bird species) we are unable to include maps or
references to nesting sites within this report. However, it has become clear that nesting sites
within the SLLP area are under-recorded, particularly with regard to breeding success and
fledgling numbers (key indicators of local population trends).
4.1.6 Delivery Stage Project Proposal
A project outline was developed within the Supporting Species Brief, the project requires
£10,000 funding from HLF. The project includes the following actions:
I. Data gathering and mapping of barn owl via a citizen science project
II. The creation of a new barn owl group to conduct site visits and offer management advice
throughout the Sheffield region
III. Training of up to 4 key volunteers in the appropriate survey techniques and management
techniques for barn owl (via the national charity Barn owl Trust)
IV. Outreach visits by a volunteer barn owl ecologist to land/building owners to offer advice on
both land management for owls and retention and/or creation of nesting opportunities.
V. A small budget to purchase and erect owl boxes
VI. A webpage report on the work carried out and its success (or otherwise) together with
recommendations for future work.
VII. Public engagement events within the SLLP area to gain members for the barn owl group.
0606.17 30/04/2018 26

4.1.7 Project Decision
The project has been given steering committee approval and has been included within Project
9 Supporting Species.
Figure 4-2 SLLP Key habitat areas for Barn owl
0606.17 30/04/2018 27

4.2 Bat Species
Bats are one of the more mysterious of the UK fauna. Despite them being relatively well
studied, much is still unknown about their life cycle. For 8 of the UK species it is not possible
to even establish population trends. Key mysteries remain with regard to hibernation and
mating sites and, as shown by Alcothoe Myotis alcothoe, it is possible that there are still new
species waiting to be discovered.
Figure 4-3 Brown Long Eared Bat in Hand (P Liptrot, 2017)
4.2.1 National Status
There are currently 18 bat species considered native to the UK ranging from the frequently
seen common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus which ranges throughout the UK (apart from
offshore islands), to the exceptionally rare greater mouse eared Myotis myotis that is
restricted to a single individual on the south coast.
UK and European bat populations collapsed from the middle of the 1950s (Dietz & Kiefer,
2016) as a result of changed agricultural practices. In particular, the increase in use of
pesticides and destruction of habitats such as woodland and hedgerow led to a huge reduction
in available prey as well as other more direct effects (DDT build up in tissue). The losses were
exemplified by horseshoe bats, with large scale local extinction events recorded up until the
1970s. Whilst increased protection for bats and their roosts and the banning of certain
pesticides has improved the status of some species, others have still not recovered from this
initial collapse (Dietz & Kiefer, 2016).
The Bat Conservation Trust oversee the National Bat Monitoring programme each year (from
1998) to assess the status of UK bats species. The 2017 status report indicates that of the 10
bats species they are able to monitor, populations are stable or recovering (Bat Conservation
Trust, 2017). However, these results should be treated with caution, any improvements must
be seen in the context of dramatic historic declines and many pressures on bat populations
still remain (Bat Conservation Trust, 2017).
0606.17 30/04/2018 28

Figure 4-4 Habitat Suitability Modelling suitability for bat species
0606.17 30/04/2018 29

4.2.2 Sheffield Status
10 species of bat have been recorded within the Sheffield area with the highest diversity of
species and roost sites to the west of the city. Building dwelling species such as common
pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle are likely to be well recorded (as much of the data is
associated with roost records from Natural England bat roost visitors or from data collected
to support European Protected Species Mitigation Licences. However, tree dwelling species
and the cryptic bat species (whiskered/Brandt’s) are likely to be under recorded. The South
Yorkshire Bat Group, through Habitat Suitability Modelling and targeted harp and mist net
trapping, have been attempting to address this gap in knowledge. Without this baseline data,
it is not possible to infer population trends for the region for the majority of bat species.
Figure 4-5 Whiskered Bat (T Marshal, 2017)
4.2.3 Significance of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
10 species of bat have been recorded within the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Area:
0606.17 30/04/2018 30

Table 4-1 Bat Species Recorded within the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
SPECIES
APPROX NO. OF CONFIRMED RECORDS
Common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus 828
Brown Long Eared Plecotus auritus 38
Serotine Eptesicus serotinus 6
Natterer’s Myotis nattereri 10
Whiskered Myotis mystacinus 38
Soprano pipistrelle Pipistrellus pygmaeus 54
Noctule Nyctalus noctula 46
Leisler’s Nyctalus leisleri 8
Daubenton’s Myotis daubentonii 117
Brandt’s Myotis brandtii 1
The combination of the topography, lowland woodland, water, natural and man-made
underground structures within the SLLP area is unique within the local area, and lends itself to
a variety of bat species. The diversity of bat species present within the SLLP is higher than the
local surrounds as a result. The area supports the only known roost within South Yorkshire of
the nationally scarce Brandt’s bat, as well as significant hibernation and maternity colonies of
other species. Despite these records, much of the woodland and underground sites have never
been surveyed or assessed and it is possible that other sites of regional or national importance
may be present.
4.2.4 Key Threats / Opportunities within the SLLP Area
Key threats within the SLLP area are likely to be the same as those nationally:
Roost destruction and roost loss – although roosts are legally protected there are
dispensations for development and other lawful practices where the public interest
benefit of the action can be seen to outweigh the conservation value of the existing
roost. Whilst for construction there is often provision made for more valuable roosts,
as part of the licensing process for commercial forestry this is not usual practice.
Recent research is showing that bats often have multiple roost locations within a single
woodland, many of which will not be used at the same time (Andrews, 2016). The
traditional technique of leaving a small copse around the tree where the roost is found
whilst felling the remaining commercial crop will likely lead to the abandonment of the
roost.
Habitat fragmentation - along with more traditional causes of habitat degradation
(removal of woodland, hedgerows and waterbodies to make way for larger agricultural
fields), both roads and artificial lighting can present barriers to bat dispersal. Traffic
mortality has been underestimated for some time, but European evidence is now
suggesting that this can even lead to local extinctions. After the flight path from a roost
cave in Greece was intersected by a new road, many horseshoe bats were found dead
at the road side and the population was declared extinct shortly afterwards (Dietz &
Kiefer, 2016). Urban expansion also has other less direct effects, bat species are known
0606.17 30/04/2018 31

to avoid street lighting (Rowse, et al., 2015) and also are negatively impacted by road
noise (in heavily used areas) (Dietz & Kiefer, 2016). These impacts are becoming
growing problems for UK bat species with the amount of un-fragmented habitat
steadily decreasing and traffic at night and road lighting steadily increasing.
Lack of baseline data – both of the problems above are compounded by a lack of
baseline data for the region. Much of the woodland or other suitable foraging habitat
within the Landscape Partnership area has never been surveyed appropriately. As a
result we have limited idea of how bats are using the wider landscape beyond their
roosts and the relative importance of differing areas. Without this data it is almost
impossible to develop a coherent strategy for the protection or enhancement of bat
habitat within the region.
However there are distinct opportunities presented by the area:
The South Yorkshire Bat Group have a network of keen, knowledgeable and experienced
volunteers within the SLLP area and have already been undertaking a programme of survey
works within the area since 2014. This project work, if expanded, would provide a suitable
baseline from which to make strategic decisions relating to bats within the wider area.
Given the sheer amount of nationally and locally designated wildlife sites within the SLLP area
there is already a network of sites to base a regional strategy for bats around. Placing these
into appropriate management regimes and linking them together would create a suitable
wildlife corridor through which bat species could move north in response to climate change.
Sheffield City Council have just released their criteria for designating local wildlife sites based
upon their importance for bats. This offers the potential to allow the designation of news sties
based on the data gathered by SYBG but also the re-assessment of exiting wildlife sites for the
importance to bats. Done appropriately, this data can also be used to develop a regional
strategy for bats in order to influence planning and strategic decisions going forward.
4.2.5 Development Stage Survey
Initially the Sheffield Ecology Unit and South Yorkshire Bat Group were approached for records
within the SLLP area. However, early in the development process it became clear that the SYBG
would be key and active partners for SLLP project going forward. SYBG have been undertaking
Habitat Suitability Modelling (HSM) work for the Sheffield areas since 2014. The HSM work is
based upon a standard statistical technique that predicts species distribution based upon
environmental data and occurrence records (Phillips, et al., 2006). Prior to the SLLP, the SYBG
had undertaken transect surveys in 2014 and 2015, recording 1612 presence records for bats.
Wildscapes used the habitat data provided by Dr Ebru Ersoy (Ersoy, 2017) along with data
collected and analysed by SYBG to produce prediction models for the Sheffield area as shown
in Figure 4-4. Wildscapes are currently working with SYBG to refine models for six bat species
(Daubenton’s, whiskered/Brandt’s, noctule and Leisler’s bats). These initial models are being
ground-truthed using harp and mist net trapping surveys in woodlands in April and May 2017
by Wildscapes and SYBG as part of the development phase funding.
4.2.6 Delivery Stage Project Proposal
Due to the success of the Development Stage survey work with the South Yorkshire Bat Group,
two projects relating to bats were drawn up for the delivery stage:
0606.17 30/04/2018 32

Supporting Local Groups - South Yorkshire Bat Group
The South Yorkshire Bat Group do not manage nature reserves themselves but are very keen
to both improve nature reserves and other sites for bats and to help people who manage sites
better understand and value the bats that rely upon these sites. In addition, the group wants
to strengthen habitats and connectivity across the SLLP to increase the resilience of existing
populations and increase opportunities for bat species movement, particularly south-north as
adaptation to climate change. Bats are also a key indicator species for the health of a habitat.
Our project will generate information that will help the SLLP measure success and evaluate
the value of the work it has done to improve habitats for wildlife.
In order to do this, the group plans to approach the project using a tiered public engagement
and survey strategy which will be informed by the skill level required to undertake the event
or task safely (i.e. without risking injuring bats or people). All events and/or surveys will be
undertaken within the Landscape Partnership area. The first two years of survey and events
will aim to determine key sites within the area for bats. The project requires £14,959 funding
from HLF.
During delivery phase the bat group will:
Undertake a ‘hibernation site' search of the Landscape Partnership area. This will
include a desktop study to identify potential hibernation sites within the area (i.e.
underground sites, historic structures) utilising GIS, and the minimum of 1 hibernation
site visit per year.
Undertake Transect and Static Surveys of key sites within the Landscape Partnership
area as and when identified.
Undertake harp trapping surveys of woodlands within the Landscape Partnership area.
This will feed into the national Small Myotis Project and inform landscape-scale
management of several sites within the area.
Undertake at least 3 bat walks per year within the Sheffield Lakelands to both educate
the general public about bats and to gain new members for the group.
Provide advice to the site owners and managers on ways to encourage bats throughout
the Landscape Partnership area as and when required.
Work with site owners and managers to install and monitor roost boxes.
Undertake harp trapping surveys at any potential swarming sites identified through
the hibernation checks.
In the final year of the project, the group will assess the data generated and support the wider
SLLP programme with species-based evidence of habitat / condition improvement on specific
sites, regional connectivity and species mobility.
Making Space for Bats
When looking at the project above it was clear that there was a gap for relaying and
interpreting data gathered from the bat group surveys to inform the wider SLLP projects. But
also due to the specialised nature of the work being undertaken by the bat group, an
opportunity was being missed for public engagement. As a result, the Making Space for Bats
project was developed. The project requires £6000 funding from HLF.
0606.17 30/04/2018 33

The first part of the project is to develop a coherent strategy for managing woodlands with
care for bats through consultation with the South Yorkshire Bat Group. This information will
be fed into the SLLP Area woodland management plan to be developed within years 3 and 4
of the Woodland Heart project. This will involve assimilating the existing information available
for management of woodland for bats, legal requirements and the existing roost records/bat
box schemes within the area.
The second part of the project will be to conduct three bat public engagement events involving
bat box building and bat walks. These events will be promoted as Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership, Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust and South Yorkshire Bat group events.
They will be used to encourage membership for the latter organisations. The public will be
invited to sponsor and construct a bat box which will then be placed within targeted
woodlands by volunteers. A volunteer bat worker will then check these bat boxes on a yearly
basis throughout the project period. The results of the box checks and of the bat survey work
undertaken by the (SYBG) will be summarised in article leaflets to be emailed to the sponsors
in autumn. The article will include details of the public engagement events scheduled for the
SLLP area in a “get involved” section.
4.2.7 Project Decision
Both projects were granted steering group approval: the South Yorkshire bat Group project
was placed within Project 6 Supporting Local Groups, whilst the Making Space for Bats was
included under the 9 Supporting Species.
0606.17 30/04/2018 34

4.3 Goshawk
Goshawk Accipter gentilis is a charismatic and secretive raptor, reliant upon woodlands and
forestry plantation for hunting and breeding sites.
Figure 4-6 Goshawk (N Kenntner)
4.3.1 National Status
Goshawks were hunted to extinction in the UK in the 19th century. A national programme of
reintroductions (both deliberate and accidental) led to the species return in the 1960s. The
species is currently considered to be of Green conservation status by the RSPB.
4.3.2 Significance of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
The Peak District Raptor Monitoring Group has been monitoring the species within the SLLP
area and immediate surrounds since 1994 (when 6 breeding pairs were recorded), with the
highest count of 11 breeding pairs in 1999. However, this was a temporary reprieve with the
population in the Sheffield area declining rapidly in the early 2000s (RSPB, 2006) and the final
result being that it is now thought that no breeding Goshawk are to be found in the area.
4.3.3 Key Threats / Opportunities within the SLLP Area
While illegal persecution is cited as a likely significant cause of their decline (RSPB, 2006),
increased fragmentation of woodland, disturbance as a result of increased leisure activity and
unsympathetic management of commercial forestry woodland may also be factors.
0606.17 30/04/2018 35

Figure 4-7 Key habitat types for Goshawk within the Landscape partnership area
4.3.4 Development Stage Survey
The Sheffield Ecology Unit, Sheffield Bird Study Group and Peak District Raptor Monitoring
Group were approached for records within the SLLP area. However, due to the sensitivity of
these species records (schedule 1 bird species) we are unable to include maps or references
0606.17 30/04/2018 36

to nesting sites within this report. The Peak District Raptor Monitoring Group was a main
partner in developing the project for the delivery stage.
4.3.5 Delivery Stage Project Proposal
The project requires £25000 funding from the HLF. This project would be led by the Peak
District Raptor Monitoring Group and will involve:
I. Mapping suitable habitat and connectivity to create an estimate of the potential breeding
population.
II. Researching neighbouring populations to estimate and confirm potential recruitment to the
area.
III. Ground-truth the potential habitats and determine which woodland/forestry areas could
realistically supporting breeding goshawk.
IV. Monitor and survey throughout the SLLP LCAP period to determine actual goshawk
populations. This information is extremely sensitive and will be managed as such, so rather
than say how many there are and where, our outreach will only state how many fewer there
are than we think there should be.
The results from the above work will be used to feed into forestry and woodland management
throughout the SLLP area, with a view to retaining core breeding woodlands. In addition, the
information we gain will help determine the impact changes in land use (particularly expansion
of leisure) and illegal persecution has on this species.
4.3.6 Project Decision
The project has been given approval and has been included within Project 9 Supporting
Species.
0606.17 30/04/2018 37

4.4 Nightjar
Nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus are an elusive nocturnal bird, more likely to be heard than
seen with their unique call rolling out over their preferred habitats of lowland heath or young
forestry plantation.
Figure 4-8 Nightjar (Neil Aldridge)
4.4.1 National Status
Nightjars are protected under Annex 1 of the European Commission Wild Birds Directive and
listed as Amber on the British Red Data List for Birds. Nationally, populations are thought to
be recovering as a result of commercial clear fell forestry increasing the availability of suitable
nesting habitat (Morris, et al., 1994). Breeding nightjars are primarily associated with lowland
heath and young conifer plantations.
4.4.2 Key Threats / Opportunities within the SLLP Area
Priority habitat creation for Nightjar is in clear conflict with that of the Goshawk (mature and
over mature conifer plantations). In order to ensure there is sufficient habitat variety within
the SLLP area following this project, it is necessary to ensure that both species are treated as
a priority for forestry management.
In addition to this, forestry management suitable for nightjar can often suffer from poor public
perception as it often requires clear-felling mature conifer woodland which can look drastic
within the landscape.
4.4.3 Development Stage Survey
The Sheffield Ecology Unit and Sheffield Bird Study Group were approached for records within
the SLLP area. However, due to the sensitivity of these species records (sensitive bird species)
we are unable to include maps or references to nesting sites within this report.
0606.17 30/04/2018 38

Figure 4-9 SLLP Key Habitat types for Nightjar
4.4.4 Delivery Stage Project Proposal
The project would require £5000 HLF funding. This project will:
I. Review recent years’ nightjar populations against external (outside SLLP) factors and internal
forestry activity.
0606.17 30/04/2018 39

II.
III.
Assess forestry operation plans across the Lakelands and estimate how this might impact
nightjar. Consider factors that are effecting the population.
Conduct at least 3 public engagement Nightjar walks within the Landscape Partnership area to
raise awareness of the species and its habitat requirements.
The information gathered within parts I and II will be fed into the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Area Woodland Management Plan to be developed within years 3 and 4 of the Woodland
Heart project.
We will use the information from this project (and the goshawk work) to raise awareness of
the importance of larger scale forestry operations within the landscape for notable species.
While both projects will include a public engagement element, particularly around how people
behave in the countryside, only the nightjar project will include bird walks and promotion of
visiting sites.
4.4.5 Project Decision
The project has been given steering group approval and has been included within Project 9
Supporting Species.
0606.17 30/04/2018 40

4.5 Osprey
Ospreys are magnificent birds which capture the public imagination when they arrive each
summer to breed in the UK. They attract hundreds of visitors to the large waterbodies where
they hunt, watching the birds swoop low over the water to pluck fish from just below the
surface.
Figure 4-10 Osprey (J Rogerson)
4.5.1 National Status
Ospreys are Amber listed (RSPB) within the UK with only 200-250 breeding pairs known
nationally (the majority in Scotland and Wales). Hunted to extinction in the UK in the 1800s,
the population first began to return to Scotland from Scandinavia in the 1950s. The species is
expanding its territory through a combination of increased animal and habitat protections,
and reintroductions. The expansion has resulted in breeding pairs being recorded at sites at
Bassenthwaite and at Rutland water in England. Birds have currently only ever been known to
fly over the SLLP area during migration between summer nesting sites to the north and
wintering grounds to the south.
4.5.2 Significance of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
Osprey have currently only ever been known to fly over the SLLP area during migration
between summer nesting sites to the north and wintering grounds to the south.
0606.17 30/04/2018 41

Figure 4-11 Waterbodies within the SLLP and beyond
4.5.3 Key Threats / Opportunities within the SLLP Area
The Peak District Raptor Monitoring Group (PDRMG) has confirmed that whilst the fish
populations of SLLP reservoirs are likely to be insufficient to support a breeding pair alone,
when taken together with the larger fish populations at the Ladybower complex to the west,
0606.17 30/04/2018 42

the sites should be sufficient to support a nesting pair of osprey. In this scenario, the less
disturbed nature of the sites within the SLLP area could make a nesting site at this location
more favoured than one on Ladybower.
4.5.4 Development Stage Survey
The Sheffield Ecology Unit, Sheffield Bird Study Group and Peak District Raptor Monitoring
Group were approached for records within the SLLP area. However, due to the sensitivity of
these species records (schedule 1 bird species) we are unable to include maps or references
to nesting sites within this report. The Peak District Raptor Monitoring Group were a main
partner in developing the project for the delivery stage.
4.5.5 Delivery Stage Project Proposal
Many organisations across the UK including RSPB, Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust
and Anglian Water, are engaged in creating and managing nesting opportunities for osprey.
Some have been successful (Rutland Water and Bassenthwaite) while others are still to see a
single visit.
This project will work with the Midhope Nature Reserve project, where we will be erecting an
Osprey platform. The cost allowed for the project is £5000.
4.5.6 Project Decision
The project has been given steering group approval and has been included within Project 9
Supporting Species.
0606.17 30/04/2018 43

4.6 Otter
Otter is a much loved species, their curious nature endearing them to the public and making
them a flagship species for the conservation of UK rivers.
Figure 4-12 Otters (M Holland, 2017)
4.6.1 National Status
Otter have been one of the national success stories, returning to British rivers in strength after
being virtually extinct in many areas in the 1980s.
Otter were rendered locally extinct from many river courses as a result of a combination
factors; persecution and changes to agricultural practices in the 1950s (the introduction of
DDT) reduced rural populations whilst urban populations were rendered extinct by water
pollution destroying prey populations.
Stricter controls for water pollution and pesticide, legal protection and a successful
reintroduction programme has led to a population recovery culminating in the species now
being recorded as present in all UK counties.
4.6.2 Sheffield Status
Sheffield has been the subject of a major conservation research project, Otterly Amazing,
carried out by Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust in partnership with the University of
Sheffield (Nature Counts, 2018). The project involved the capture of field signs for the River
Don as it passes the rough the city. The project proved that there is thriving population of
Otters using the Don with 120 field signs found on approx. 24km of river course. Further DNA
profiling carried out on spraints recovered during the project was found to indicate the
presence of at least three individuals with a further 4 suspected (Nature Counts, 2018).
0606.17 30/04/2018 44

Figure 4-13 Otter Records and Potentially Suitable Habitat within the SLLP Area
0606.17 30/04/2018 45

4.6.3 Significance of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
The SLLP area includes a number of major tributaries to the River Don and as such, appropriate
management of this area is crucial to the survival of species further downstream. Although
there is limited evidence available for the population in the SLLP area, the results of the Otterly
Amazing project would suggest that the rural habitats contained with the SLLP are likely to be
of key importance for otter in the wider Sheffield area (Nature Counts, 2018).
4.6.4 Key Threats / Opportunities within the SLLP Area
Whilst many of the original threats to otter population have been curtailed in the past 20 years,
the species is still vulnerable at the local level.
Inappropriate culverting schemes – whilst there has been a move to introduce wildlife friendly
culverts as part of road schemes, this is not yet standard practice for agriculture or
construction. As such, Otters can be forced to leave the river channel, exposing them to risk
of road traffic accidents and other disturbance impacts.
In channel fish barriers – again, whilst there has been a recent move to introduce fish passes
to weirs where possible, there are still sections of river where they have not been
implemented. Prey availability is likely to be a major constraint to otter territory expansion.
Lighting – otters are a primarily nocturnal species and are known to avoid areas of artificial
lighting. Both new residential developments and the infrastructure to support them (cycle
paths, roads and footpath), can often lead to the lighting of river corridors.
The project area does offer a distinct opportunity, as the Otterly Amazing project has been an
exceptional success, garnering national interest and much of the volunteer network trained
and used by the Otterly Amazing project is interested and active still.
Yorkshire Water and Sheffield City Council are key partners within the SLLP project and key
land holders and influencers when it comes to potential Otter habitat. Although they have
standing advice documents regarding Otter, up to date Otter information for the area would
allow them to create a strategy to better manage the SLLP area.
4.6.5 Development Stage Survey
The Sheffield Ecology Unit and the Otterly Amazing project were approached for their records
within the SLLP area.
4.6.6 Delivery Stage Project Proposal
The intention would be to build in the existing success of the Otterly Amazing project to launch
an investigation of the tributary rivers of the River Don within the SLLP area. The project would
be run primarily a public engagement activity, encouraging local people to sign up as
volunteers with the core team of the Otterly Amazing project to train and become field
surveyors, identifying and collecting otter spraints. Ideally the DNA analysis project from the
first project would be extended to allow identification of individuals although this would
require a partnership with University of Sheffield.
The result of the project could then be used to form a species action plan for the region,
highlighting key areas for protection.
The cost for the original Otterly Amazing project was shared between the project and
University of Sheffield but is estimated to have cost £40,000.
0606.17 30/04/2018 46

4.6.7 Project Decision
The project was not approved on grounds of cost. However, should additional funding become
available once the SLLP is underway, the committee would be keen to build on the established
success of the Otterly Amazing project.
0606.17 30/04/2018 47

4.7 Upland Wading birds – Curlew
Upland wading birds are a key target for conservation nationally due to dramatic decreases in
populations as a result of agricultural intensification and poor moorland management
practices in the latter part of the 20 th Century.
Figure 4-14 Curlew (R Miller, 2017)
4.7.1 Significance of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
Sheffield’s moorlands support a number of wading bird species over the winter period.
Unfortunately data from the Sheffield Bird study group indicates three out of their seven
target species are in decline (Balmer, et al., 2013).
Curlew are one of the more positive examples, whilst not showing increased occupancy, large
areas of the moorland are classed as “confirmed” breeding (Balmer, et al., 2013). This is likely
as a result of significant conservation and moorland restoration works carried out under
Higher Level Stewardship schemes and by Moors for the Future within the SSSI, SAC and SPA
moorlands.
Of key concern for upland waders is the continued agricultural intensification of the land
immediately surrounding the moors, draining and improvement of moorland fringe pastures
and heavy grazing pressure decreasing the available breeding and feeding habitat for these
species (Nature Counts, 2018).
4.7.2 Development Stage Survey
The Sheffield Ecology Unit and Sheffield Bird Study Group were approached for records within
the SLLP area. However, due to the sensitivity of these species records (sensitive bird species)
we are unable to include maps or references to nesting sites within this report.
4.7.3 Delivery Stage Project Proposal
No project proposal was made as it was decided early in the process that works within the
moorland areas of the SLLP would be ruled out to avoid potential conflicts of interest with
other charitable funded projects.
0606.17 30/04/2018 48

Figure 4-15 SLLP Areas of Key Habitat for Upland Wading birds
0606.17 30/04/2018 49

4.8 Water Vole
The Water vole Arvicola amphibious is an icon of the traditional UK countryside, its literary
status secured by its place as Ratty in the Wind of the Willows. The species itself is at severe
risk of disappearing from the landscape entirely.
Water voles are herbivores living in colonies along river banks, usually in burrows but have
also been known to weave nests in reeds and other vegetation. Where present, the species
can be regularly seen by the public as they are active during the day.
Figure 4-16 Photograph of Water vole at Redmires Reservoir (G Badham, 2018)
4.8.1 National Status
Water voles were formerly widespread and common in the British Isles, ranging from the toe
of Cornwall to the extreme north east of Scotland (Strachan & Moorhouse, 2011). The
intensification of agriculture in the 1940s and 1950s caused the loss and degradation of
habitat, but the most rapid period of decline was during the 1980s and 1990s as American
mink Neovison vison spread. Between the 1970s and 1998, the population fell by 90%. This
catastrophic collapse is continuing at pace with recent studies finding a further 30% decline
between 2006 and 2015 (McGuire & Whitfield, 2017).
4.8.2 Sheffield Status
The trend for Sheffield is similar to the national status. The species is currently extinct within
all but the most isolated upland sites where mink have not yet colonised (Nature Counts,
2018). However, where the species is present it has healthy and long established breeding
colonies.
0606.17 30/04/2018 50

Figure 4-17 Records of Water vole within the SLLP area
4.8.3 Significance of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
Two of the remaining known sites for water vole are within the landscape partnership area: A
population in ditch systems in moorland leading into Langsett Reservoir in the North. And a
population around Redmires Reservoir in the south of the area. Both populations are on the
0606.17 30/04/2018 51

moorland and are likely to be surviving as a result of mink populations being unable to
establish in the area. Figure 4-16 shows the decline in population territory in the past 10 years,
most likely as a result of the expansion of mink territory.
4.8.4 Key Threats / Opportunities within the SLLP Area
Three main threats exist for the remaining populations within the SLLP area:
The continued expansion of mink territory - should mink make it into the isolated areas
currently occupied by water vole, water vole would be quickly made extinct.
Change in landscape use - whilst much of the surrounding landscape is protected as
part of nationally designated conservation sites, much of the habitat used by water
vole, particularly at the Redmires site, are assets for Yorkshire Water (inlets and
outfalls from the reservoir complex). Changes in the commercial operations at these
sites could directly affect the colonies present. There is anecdotal evidence that the
loss of the downstream colony of water vole at Redmires may have been as a result of
changes in the flow regime.
Habitat disturbance as a result of increased recreational activity - both Langsett and
Redmires Reservoirs are popular recreational sites. One of the core areas for water
vole is adjacent to a public right of way. Some dog owners regularly walk their dogs off
leads on the route; the dogs are drawn towards the water vole burrows and will often
swim up the watercourse disturbing the entire population.
There are a number of opportunities presented by the SLLP. Yorkshire Water are a key partner
within the project and have already taken steps towards securing the water vole habitat at
Redmires, agreeing to the installation of fence to prevent dog access into the channel
mentioned above. The Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust’s reserve Hammond’s Field is
within 100m of one of the main populations at Redmires. As this is a reserve not widely used
by the public, it offers an ideal opportunity for the creation of expansion habitat away from
recreational impact. The wider project, through Natural Flood Risk management and wildlife
friendly management of water courses, also provides improved habitat for the re-colonisation
of water vole, should a means of reversing the national population decline ever be discovered.
4.8.5 Development stage survey
The Sheffield Ecology Unit were approached for records within the SLLP area. The project
ecologist undertook a site visit of Redmires Reservoir and Hammonds Field Nature Reserve to
assess the feasibility of enhancement works.
4.8.6 Delivery Stage Project Proposal
A project outline was developed within the Supporting Species Brief. The project requires
£20,000 funding from HLF. The project includes the following actions:
I. Commission a hydrology survey of the Hammonds field site to ensure any works undertaken
will not detrimentally affect adjacent or downstream property.
II. Obtain the appropriate permissions from Natural England for the works.
III. Undertake the habitat improvement works.
IV. Provide ecological advice and support for other projects within the SLLP that may impact water
vole populations.
0606.17 30/04/2018 52

V. Run a public awareness campaign, based at Redmires, to inform people about these species
and to influence behaviour, especially amongst dog walkers.
4.8.7 Project Decision
The project has been given steering group approval and has been included within Project 9
Supporting Species.
0606.17 30/04/2018 53

4.9 White-Clawed Crayfish
White-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes is Britain’s largest native freshwater
invertebrate and was once a common and regular sight in most British rivers. They have
declined massively in both numbers and range since the 1970s. The species is now one of
Britain’s most at risk species, classed as ‘endangered’ on the IUCN red list and is at risk of global
extinction (Nature Counts, 2018).
Figure 4-18 White Clawed Crayfish (A Kirkland, 2017)
4.9.1 National Status
The species is becoming functionally extinct for virtually all of its range within the UK, with the
decline continuing at pace (50% - 80% decline in the last ten years for its European range). The
decline began in the 1970s with the widespread introduction of non-native crayfish for
farming. The most frequently farmed species, North American Signal Crayfish Pacifastacus
leniusculus, is larger, more aggressive, has a higher fecundity and readily occupies new
territory. The species rapidly escaped farms and is now well established in the wild.
At a similar time as the introduction of North American Signal crayfish, crayfish plague
Aphanomyces astaciwas was inadvertently introduced to UK Rivers. The disease whilst
affecting all crayfish species, is fatal to white-clawed crayfish. North American Signal Crayfish
have a higher resistance to the plague and therefore populations can act as carriers spreading
the disease as they expand in the river network. However, the disease can spread by other
vectors that have been immersed in infected water. As a result, outbreaks of plague have been
recorded on water courses where there have never been populations of North American Signal
Crayfish, traced back to fishing equipment, illegal crayfish trapping, wildfowl etc.
In response to the decline in white-clawed crayfish numbers, a programme of Ark sites was
introduced. The sites are isolated water bodies separated from the main river network by
physical barriers. These sites are deliberately kept confidential to prevent illegal trapping (a
major source of crayfish plague out breaks) and inadvertent spreading of plague by curious
members of the general public.
0606.17 30/04/2018 54

Figure 4-19 White Clawed Crayfish Records within the SLLP Area
4.9.2 Sheffield Status
Sheffield is one of only four locations within the Yorkshire and Humber region that support
white-clawed crayfish populations (Dangerfield, 2012). The Sheffield Crayfish Action Group
worked with other local organisations and the Environment Agency to develop a strategy for
0606.17 30/04/2018 55

the protection and monitoring of populations within the Sheffield area. This strategy included
the translocation of populations to 4 new Ark sites between 2009 and 2014. However, the
strategy has had limited success with the loss of key populations to crayfish plague, most
notably the population at Porter Brook where white clawed crayfish were rendered extinct
from 3.5km of water course over a short 7 year period (2009-2016) (Nature Counts, 2018).
4.9.3 Significance of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
As part of the preparation for the creation of Ark sites in 2009, a large scale assessment of the
suitability of water courses in the SLLP area was carried out (Eades, 2011). The majority of the
isolated upland water courses of the SLLP area are too acidic to support crayfish, however
three potential Ark sites were identified, of which two were used (the third site suffered a
pollution incident prior to the release data and as result was not used) (Eades, 2011).
The monitoring of the success of these sites was a key project aim for the development stage
survey.
4.9.4 Key Threats / Opportunities within the SLLP Area
The key threats to the population within the SLLP area remain those affecting the species
nationally:
The continued spread of non-native crayfish – most notably North American Signal
Crayfish
The continued spread of crayfish plague.
The SLLP project does offer some key opportunities; Yorkshire Water are a key partner within
the project and are keen to develop their current strategy for the protection of the species.
The third potential translocation site identified within the SLLP area in 2009 could prove to
now be suitable.
4.9.5 Development Stage Survey
The Sheffield Ecology Unit were approached for records within the SLLP area. Wildscapes
worked with the Sheffield Crayfish Action Group to provide funding for monitoring surveys of
the two Ark sites created by group in 2013 and 2014. Dr Phil Eades was commissioned to
undertake the survey and has produced a report detailing his findings (Eades, 2018). Due to
the protected nature of Ark sites it is not possible to release this report publically. The Ark site
where crayfish are confirmed is from this point referred to as Ark Site 4.
The population at Rocher End Brook (108 crayfish transferred in February 2013), formerly Ark
site 3, was found to contain no evidence of crayfish.
“…the present monitoring survey at Rocher End Brook, four years after their release, found no
crayfish by any of the three survey methods. The small size of the stream, and the very intensive
survey procedure utilised during the present survey, means that it is very unlikely that any living
crayfish were overlooked. Consequently, it has to be assumed that the translocation operation
was not successful.” (Eades, 2018).
The survey undertaken at Ark Site 4 however, found evidence of a sizable and healthy
population. 252 crayfish were translocated to this site in March 2014.
“Three years after the release of white-clawed crayfish into (Ark site 4) in March 2013, a
sizeable and healthy population has been recorded from the release site. The crayfish that were
observed by torch survey and that were captured and examined by active refuge search and
using the refuge baskets, all appeared to be healthy, with no signs of white porcelain disease
0606.17 30/04/2018 56

(thelohaniasis) or other diseases. Furthermore, a range of size classes were observed, from tiny
juveniles to large mature adults (at least 29 mm carapace length), which shows that the
population is breeding successfully.” (Eades, 2018).
4.9.6 Delivery Stage Project Proposal
The success of Ark site 4 does show that the creation of Ark sites within the SLLP area has some
merit. However, Rocher End Brook shows the risks involved with such a move. To create a new
Ark site and conduct a translocation can cost between £25,000 and a £100,000, as a result it
tends to only happen as a last resort for rescue. After discussion with the Sheffield Crayfish
Action Group only two sites would initially seem suitable for translocation:
An area of watercourse upstream of Ark site 4 – this area may already be naturally
colonised by the release at Ark site 4, but this could not be determined during the 2018
survey as the water was too fast flowing. Introducing a new population into this area
from other Sheffield sites would present too much of risk of spreading disease to the
healthy population at Ark site 4. It would better to monitor the site and move animals
upstream from Ark site 4 once the population is considered viable for translocation.
The potential Ark site withdrawn from the initial release – the site could be re-visited
and tested for signs of the pollution incident that prevented the initial release. If it is
found to be suitable, individuals could be released to create a new Ark site.
4.9.7 Project Decision
Given the limited chance of long term success for a high project cost, the lack of a current
suitable donor population, and the fact that the project could not be promoted to the general
public in a meaningful way, the project was not approved. However, should there be a pressing
need to translocate animals in the future, the suitable site has been noted by the Sheffield
Crayfish Action Group.
0606.17 30/04/2018 57

4.10 Woodland Birds – Pied and Spotted Flycatcher, Willow Tit
Woodlands support a range of different bird species, many of which do not utilise other
habitats. The national trends in woodland bird species are used as one of the key indicators of
the state of UK Biodiversity.
Figure 4-20 Willow tit (A Jones, 2015)
4.10.1 National Status
Woodland birds including the pied and spotted flycatcher and willow tit are all key
conservation target species for the forestry commission (Broome, et al., 2017) and RSPB.
Figure 4-21 Pied Flycatcher (M Holland, 2017)
0606.17 30/04/2018 58

4.10.2 Sheffield Status
Sheffield’s woodland bird populations are generally thought to be stable or in a favourable
state (Nature Counts, 2018). However, the status between species can be quite different. For
the three target species, the Sheffield status is as follows:
Pied flycatcher – 335% increase over the recording period (1975-80 and 2003-08) likely
as a result of increasingly sympathetic woodland management – increase in available
standing dead wood and woodland thinning (Nature Counts, 2018).
Willow tit – 47% decrease over the recording period, likely as a result of loss and
fragmentation of available habitat due to the natural maturation of woodland, over
browsing of the woodland shrub layer by deer and the loss of scrub habitat to
development (Nature Counts, 2018).
Spotted flycatcher – 40% decrease over the recording period, likely as a result of
climate change as the species has struggled to adapt to the changing seasons (Nature
Counts, 2018).
Figure 4-22 Spotted flycatcher (A Lewis)
4.10.3 Significance of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
The Landscape Partnership area contains a significant proportion of the Sheffield region
woodland at 2616ha including commercially managed conifer plantations and designated
wildlife sites. The woodland through the Landscapes Partnership area is a key connective
habitat for wildlife.
4.10.4 Key Threats / Opportunities within the SLLP Area
The partner organisations within the SLLP (primarily Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust,
Sheffield City Council and Yorkshire Water) are undertaking a wide range of woodland and
0606.17 30/04/2018 59

wetland work throughout the SLLP land management projects, including conversion of
commercial conifer to conservation woodlands, enhancing existing broadleaf woodlands and
nature reserves and working with water. Through these works there is an opportunity to
improve habitats in such a way as to support particular species. Within this landscape, willow
tit and the two flycatchers have been identified as ‘indicator’ or ‘target’ species for this work.
Figure 4-23 Key Habitats for Woodland birds within the SLLP area
0606.17 30/04/2018 60

4.10.5 Development Stage Survey
The Sheffield Ecology Unit and Sheffield Bird Study Group were approached for records within
the SLLP area. However, due to the sensitivity of these species records (sensitive bird species)
we are unable to include maps or references to nesting sites within this report.
4.10.6 Delivery Stage Project Proposal
The SLLP projects include a wide range of woodland and wetland work throughout the land
management projects, including conversion of commercial conifer to conservation woodlands,
enhancing existing broadleaf woodlands and nature reserves and working with water. Through
this, we have an opportunity to improve habitats in such a way as to support particular species.
Within this landscape, marsh tit and the two flycatchers have been identified as ‘indicator’ or
‘target’ species for this work. The project fund request for this project will be £5000. In this
project we will:
I. Collect and map data on each species to demonstrate current (known) population and
opportunity map for connectivity and habitat expansion.
II. Support SLLP and other woodland projects with advice.
III. Deliver guided walks and train volunteers (existing and new) in monitoring techniques.
The information gathered during this project will be used to inform future woodland
management, opportunity prescriptions for future habitat creation projects and to help
people better understand the importance of woodland as a ‘wilder’ habitat for a range of
specialist species.
4.10.7 Project Decision
The project has been given steering approval and has been included within Project 9
Supporting Species.
0606.17 30/04/2018 61

5 Statement of Significance
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area includes a diverse range of ‘wildlife sites’
ranging from nationally significant upland heathland (Sites of Special Scientific Interest),
regionally important ancient woodland sites and Nature Reserves, to locally important Local
Wildlife Sites and reservoirs. However, the mixture of habitat (moorland, woodland, rivers and
reservoirs, agricultural pasture and arable land) and its location between the upland Peak
District and the Sheffield urban conurbation lends itself as a significant wildlife corridor for the
transit of lowland species in response to climate change.
5.1 Moors and the PDNPA
The Peak District moorlands overlie the grits, shales, sandstones and mudstones of the
Millstone Grit series. The combination of plateaux blanket mires; wet and dry heaths and acid
grasslands, together with associated flushes and mires on moorland slopes, represents an
extensive tract of semi-natural upland vegetation typical of and including the full range of
moorland vegetation of the South Pennines. The moorland breeding bird assemblage is of
great regional and national importance. It includes internationally important populations of
several species, listed in the European Commission Birds Directive as requiring special
conservation measures (English Nature, 1993).
5.2 Forest in the Valleys
The history of land use is an important element in how the area is experienced and
appreciated. The development of conifer plantations and their interplay with broadleaf
woodlands in the valleys, associated with the reservoirs has created a strong aesthetic and
community sympathy. The interplay between forestry, reservoirs, clough and scrub woodland
and the wider countryside has created the mosaic of habitats which help define the area and
add significantly to the biodiversity of the region.
Figure 5-1 View over Midhope Reservoir (K Tomkins, 2017)
The rotation of commercial timber production over small areas in the valleys brings succession
in age and diversity of species which compliments both native woodlands and heritage stands
of conifer. The origin and management of stands of coniferous timber is part of the business
0606.17 30/04/2018 62

and culture of the Sheffield Lakelands and the management process contributes an important
habitat for nightjar and goshawk. During the 1970s and 80s the area was well known as the
place to see goshawk (RSPB, 2006) and although, locally, the goshawk has declined recently,
the presence of these birds would lead us to consider our woodlands and forestry to be of
regional significance.
5.3 Wildlife Sites
Designated Local wildlife Site (LWS) comprise some 27% of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership area west of the Peak District National Park (note PDNP do not maintain a LWS
network). As such, they are of high local significance; they are the core of the most ecologically
rich and visually distinctive elements of the eastern part of SLLP.
5.4 Current Water Bodies
While fourteen reservoirs compose a significant visual feature in the landscape, the acid, low
nutrient nature of the water itself, together with fluctuating water levels result in them
offering very limited opportunity for wildlife. Redmires in the south of the area is of local
importance for migrating birds and an important core site for water vole.
5.5 Species
5.5.1 Barn Owl
The combination of remnant traditional meadows and rough grassland, particularly around
the Low Bradfield area, offers excellent suitability for barn owl, and there are historic records
of the species thriving in the area. However, the loss of historic breeding sites and suitable
foraging habitat as a result of changing farming practices is likely to be having a limiting effect
on this species.
Figure 5-2 Barn Owl Foraging Over Rough Grassland (M Robinson, 2016)
0606.17 30/04/2018 63

5.5.2 Goshawk, Nightjar, Osprey
The area is of historic national significance for goshawk as it was one of the earliest
reintroduction sites and up until the early 2000s, supported a thriving breeding population.
Whilst the species has not successfully bred in the area for some time, it is hoped that through
the appropriate habitat management and action, the species can be encouraged to re-colonise
once again. However, this management should be planned so as to not conflict unduly with
the already successful programmes encouraging nightjar and woodland bird species such as
willow tit, pied and spotted flycatcher that are already present in the area. The SLLP area, in
combination with the water bodies in the wider Peak District area, also offers potential for the
re-colonisation of the nationally significant species osprey.
5.5.3 Bats (Species)
The combination of the topography, lowland woodland, water, natural and man-made
underground structures within the SLLP area is unique within the local area, and lends itself to
a variety of bat species. The diversity of bat species present within the SLLP is higher than the
local surrounds as a result. The area supports the only known roost within South Yorkshire of
the nationally scarce Brandt’s bat, as well as significant hibernation and maternity colonies of
other species. Despite these records, much of the woodland and underground sites have never
been surveyed or assessed and it is possible that other sites of regional or national importance
may be present.
5.5.4 Water Vole
Water vole would have at one time ranged throughout all of the watercourses within the SLLP
area, however a combination of habitat degradation and the encroachment of the North
American mink now leaves this nationally significant species restricted to a few isolated,
precarious upland sites.
Figure 5-3 Water vole foraging (A Ramsey, 2009)
0606.17 30/04/2018 64

6 Reference List and Bibliography
Altringham, J., 2000. British Bat; New Naturalist series Number 93. London: Collins .
Altringham, J. D., 1996. Bats; Biology and behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Altringham, J. D., 2011. Bats from Evolution to Conservation. Second Edition ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Andrews, H., 2016. Bat Tree Habitat Key, Bridgwater: AEcol.
Balmer, D. et al., 2013. Bird Atlas, Sheffield: Sheffield Bird Study Group.
Bat Conservation Trust, 2017. The state of the UK's bats 2017, s.l.: Bat Conservation Trust.
Broome, A. et al., 2017. Implications of Lowland broadleaved woodland management for the
conservation of target bird species, s.l.: Forestry Commision.
Brown, A. F. & Shepherd, K. B., 1993. A method for censusing upland breeding waders. Bird Study,
40(3), pp. 189-195.
BTO, 2018. Bird of Conservation Concern 4 : the Red List for Birds. [Online]
Available at: https://www.bto.org/science/monitoring/psob
[Accessed 01 2018].
CIEEM, 2013. Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Winchester: Chartered Institute of
Ecology and Environmental Mangement .
Collins , J., ed., 2016. Bat Survey for Professional Ecologist: Good Practice Guidance. 3rd ed. s.l.:The
Bat Conservation Trust.
Dangerfield, S., 2012. Crayfish Action Sheffield Saving Sheffield's White-clawed crayfish Final Project
Report, Sheffield: Sheffield City Council Ecology Unit.
Dean, M., Strachan, R., Gow, D. & Andrews, R., 2016. The Water Vole Mitigation Handbook (Mammal
Society Mitigation Guidance) Series, London: The Mammal Society .
Dietz, C. & Kiefer, A., 2016. Bats of Britain and Europe, London: Bloomsbury.
Eades, P., 2011. Sheffield white-clawed crayfish Ark Site Project. Selection and establishment report,
Sheffield: Dr Phil Eades.
Eades, P., 2018. "Ark Site 4" & Rocher End Brook Ark Sites White-clawed Crayfish Monitoring,
Sheffield: Dr Phil Eades.
Eades, P., 2018. Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey, Sheffield: P Eades.
Eades, P., 2018. Hammond's Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey, Sheffield: P Eades.
English Nature, 1993. Dark Peak SSSI citation, s.l.: English Nature.
Ersoy, E., 2017. An Integrated Approach to Enhancing Ecological Connectivity in Urban Areas: a case
study of Sheffield, UK, s.l.: s.n.
JNCC, 2018. Guidance on contents and use of the Conservation Designations Spreadsheet. [Online]
Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-3418
[Accessed 01 2018].
0606.17 30/04/2018 65

McGuire, C. & Whitfield, D., 2017. National Water Vole Database and Mapping Project, s.l.: Wildlife
Trusts.
Morris, A. et al., 1994. The status and distribution of Nightjars Caprimulgus europaeus in Britain in
1992. A report to the British Trust for Ornithology. British Trust for Ornitholgy, 43(3), pp. 181-191.
Natural Capital Solutions, 2018. A baseline ecosystem services assessment of the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape, Sheffield: Natural Capital Solutions.
Nature Counts, 2018. Sheffield State of Nature, Sheffield: Nature Counts Project.
Phillips, S., Anderson, R. & Schapire, E., 2006. Maximum entropy modelling of species geographic
distribution. Ecological Modelling, Issue 190, pp. 231-259.
QGIS, 2014. QGIS 2.14.12-Essen, s.l.: s.n.
Rose, F., 2006. The Wild Flower Key: How to identify wild flowers, trees and shrubs in Britain and
Ireland. s.l.:Frederick Warne.
Rowse, E. G. et al., 2015. Dark Matters: The Effects of Artifical Lighting on Bats. Bats in the
Anthropocene: Conservation of Bats in a Changing World, pp. 187-213.
RSPB, 2006. Peak Malpractice. What's happening to wildlife in the Peak District National Park,
Huddersfield: RSPB.
Stone , E. L., 2013. Bats and Lighting: Overview of current evidence and mitigation, Bristol: University
of Bristol.
Strachan, R. & Moorhouse, T., 2011. Water Vole Conservation Handbook, s.l.: Mammal Socity .
Tveiten, H., 2014. NJION Qgis Plugin. s.l.:s.n.
Wildscapes CIC Ltd, 2017. Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Midhope Reservoir, Midhopestones, Sheffield:
Wildscapes CIC Ltd.
Wood, D. & Hill, R., 2013. Breeding Birds of the Sheffield Area, Sheffield: Sheffield Bird Study Group.
0606.17 30/04/2018 66

7 Appendix
7.1 Supporting Documents
DOCUMENT TITLE
"Ark Site 4" & Rocher End Brook Ark Sites White-clawed Crayfish Monitoring – Not included as
contains confidential records – Document is available on request but is not for public realease.
Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey
Hammond's Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey
Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Midhope Reservoir, Midhopestones
Vison statement for the Enhancement of Midhope Reservoir for wildlife
Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Wyming Brook and Fox Hagg Nature Reserve – Not Included. Will be
realeased as an addendum to this report in once completed in May 2017
0606.17 30/04/2018 67

Phase 1 Survey
Report
Midhope Reservoir
Near Midhopestones
Sheffield S36
28 November 2017
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 1 Reference :675.17

Quality Assurance
Project
Number
Project
Name
Site
location
File name
Version
0606.17
Midhope Reservoir Phase 1 Survey
Near Midhopestones, Sheffield S36
0606.17 Midhope Reservoir Phase 1 Report
V01
Principal Author Checked By Approved By
Julie Riley Paul Liptrot Jon Goodrick
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 2 Reference :0606.17

Contents
Tables ................................................................................................................................................................. 4
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the report..................................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology .................................................................................................................................................. 6
2 Site Details.................................................................................................................................................. 7
3 Site Description .......................................................................................................................................... 7
4 Compartment Descriptions ........................................................................................................................ 8
4.1 Compartment A .................................................................................................................................. 8
4.2 Compartment B .................................................................................................................................. 8
4.3 Compartment C ................................................................................................................................ 12
4.4 Compartment D ............................................................................................................................... 15
4.5 Compartment E ................................................................................................................................ 19
4.6 Compartment F ................................................................................................................................ 24
4.7 Compartment G ............................................................................................................................... 27
4.8 Compartment H ............................................................................................................................... 30
4.9 Compartment I ................................................................................................................................. 33
4.10 Compartment J ................................................................................................................................. 36
4.11 Compartment K ................................................................................................................................ 40
4.12 Compartment L ................................................................................................................................ 43
4.13 Compartment M............................................................................................................................... 47
4.14 Compartment N ............................................................................................................................... 52
5 General recommendations from Phase 1 survey .................................................................................... 54
6 Bird Survey ............................................................................................................................................... 55
6.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 55
6.2 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 55
6.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 55
7 Otter Survey ............................................................................................................................................. 56
7.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 56
7.2 Results .............................................................................................................................................. 56
7.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 56
8 Appendix A – maps................................................................................................................................... 57
8.1 Compartment and Location Map ..................................................................................................... 58
8.2 Phase 1 Habitat Map – Overview ..................................................................................................... 59
8.3 Phase 1 Habitat Map – Sheet A ........................................................................................................ 60
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 3 Reference :0606.17

8.4 Phase 1 Habitat Map – Sheet B ........................................................................................................ 61
8.5 Phase 1 Habitat Map – Sheet C ........................................................................................................ 62
8.6 Target Notes ..................................................................................................................................... 63
9 Appendix B – Species List ......................................................................................................................... 65
9.1 DAFOR Scale & Grid References ....................................................................................................... 65
9.2 Incidental Species ............................................................................................................................. 65
9.3 Compartment B ................................................................................................................................ 66
9.4 Compartment C ................................................................................................................................ 68
9.5 Compartment D ............................................................................................................................... 70
9.6 Compartment E ................................................................................................................................ 71
9.7 Compartment F ................................................................................................................................ 75
9.8 Compartment G ............................................................................................................................... 77
9.9 Compartment H ............................................................................................................................... 78
9.10 Compartment I ................................................................................................................................. 79
9.11 Compartment J ................................................................................................................................. 80
9.12 Compartment K ................................................................................................................................ 80
9.13 Compartment L ................................................................................................................................ 82
9.14 Compartment M............................................................................................................................... 83
9.15 Compartment N ............................................................................................................................... 85
9.16 Bird Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 86
10 Appendix C - References ...................................................................................................................... 88
Tables
Table 1: Target Notes ....................................................................................................................................... 63
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 4 Reference :0606.17

Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 5 Reference :0606.17

1 Introduction
Purpose of the report
This report presents a Phase 1 Habitat Survey of Midhope Reservoir. The survey provides baseline
data on the type, structure and condition of vegetation and habitats present at a site. The report
includes an assessment of the site’s value for birds, otters and other species and makes
recommendations for further surveys and for enhancement of the site are made where appropriate.
Methodology
A Phase 1 Habitat Survey was undertaken at Midhope Reservoir over two visits on the 18 th August
2017 and the 12 th September 2017. This survey technique was devised by The Nature Conservancy
Council (JNCC) (now Natural England) in the early 1970s. Since then, this methodology has been
widely used throughout Britain. It is a standardised method of biological survey which allows rapid
habitat assessment of an area. Use of a standardised system allows results from different surveys
to be compared accurately and maps and statistical analysis to be readily interpreted.
To carry out a Phase 1 survey, the relevant Ordnance Survey base maps are used to record the
location and size of vegetation communities. Predetermined habitat definitions are used to verify
habitat type, and standard colours are used to represent habitats on the map. Target notes are
recorded on the map and are used to identify the location of specific notable features.
Habitats descriptions are written. These are concise assessments of plant communities where the
‘character’ of a habitat is recorded, providing a qualitative account of the site. An extended version
of the survey has been carried out, with as comprehensive a species list as possible being compiled.
This site is large and has been split into 14 compartments to simplify the process of site description
and to assist with targeted future management. The compartments are based on the habitat
characteristics present and/or physical features that make the compartment easy to identify.
A detailed species list has been recorded for each compartment, showing the common and scientific
names of all plant species identified. The abundance of each species is represented using the DAFOR
scale; the definitions of which are:
D = Dominant
A = Abundant
F = Frequent
O = Occasional
R = Rare
P = Present (abundance not recorded)
Survey constraints should be taken into consideration when reading this report. The survey took
place at the end of the botanical season, so it is likely that spring-flowering plants will not have been
recorded during the survey. Some areas of the site were difficult to access, so may not been fully
covered (this is indicated in each compartment’s description). Conifer species have been identified
as far as practicable, but occasionally identifying features such as needles were too far out of reach
for identification to be confirmed. Other than sphagnum mosses, other mosses were not identified.
The Phase 1 survey was undertaken by Julie Riley BA (Hons) MA with assistance from Adele Harrison
BSc (Hons) MSc.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 6 Reference :0606.17

A general bird survey was undertaken by Dave Gash on the 12 th September 2017 and a search for
otter signs was undertaken by Paul Liptrot on 18 th August 2017.
2 Site Details
Midhope Reservoir is located east of the village of Midhopestones and is situated roughly between
Langsett Reservoir and Underbank Reservoir at 240 to 285 metres above sea level. The site is
oriented on a roughly southeast to northwest axis. It is accessible from a number of B roads that
surround it, in particular Mortimer Road and Gill Royd Lane. It has an approximate central grid
reference of SK 225 992.
The Midhope Reservoir site is owned by Yorkshire Water, who manage the site for water storage
and forestry, the site being planted up largely as coniferous plantation.
Midhope Reservoir is designated as a Local Wildlife Site (LWS), number 054, by Sheffield City
Council, due to it being a Biological SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation). It is described
as a large site with a mosaic of habitats and interests, supporting Grade B Red Data Book plant
species and being of interest for winter and passage birds.
The site is directly adjacent to the Dark Peak SSSI which starts on the other side of Shaw Lane and
Gilroyd Lane to the west/southwest.
The boundaries of the site are different depending on whether you are looking at the LWS boundary
or the Yorkshire Water forestry boundary. The Yorkshire Water forestry boundary includes all
compartments except for Compartment J. This boundary gives the size of the site as approximately
46 hectares, not including the reservoir itself (or, it should be noted, the exposed sandy banks that
have resulted from a low water level in the reservoir). The LWS includes all compartments except
for Compartment A, F, M and N. This boundary gives the size of the site as 65.26 hectares, including
the reservoir.
3 Site Description
Midhope Reservoir is a comparatively small reservoir located at the eastern edge of Midhope
Moors. It is bounded along most of its southeast to northwest edge by Gill Royd Lane and Shaw
Lane, with open moorland and fields rising away to the southwest. To the north and northeast of
the site, a network of fields enclosed by stone walls forms the majority of the boundary. Mortimer
Road runs between Compartments A and B. To the north, a number of fields enclosed by stone
walls lie between the site and Midhope Lane.
Several watercourses enter/exit the reservoir site, with Shaw Brook coming in from the west, Hagg
Brook at the northern edge, Edge Cliff Brook along part of the site along Compartments B and C,
and Gill Royd Spring to the south. There are also a number of issues marked on the OS map, running
from south to north along the southern edge of the site.
The standing water of the reservoir is the lowest point of the site. The banks to the north side of the
reservoir rise steeply up to the north. The banks to the south side are less steep, rising up to the
south. The dam wall at the north of the site is extremely steep, terraced grassland, falling quickly
away to the north, and surrounded by higher ground to the east and west.
Habitats present on the Midhope Reservoir site have been classified using the JNCC ‘s guidelines for
Phase 1 Habitat Surveys.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 7 Reference :0606.17

The key habitats present on site are coniferous plantation, mixed plantation, scrub, semi-improved
acid grassland, bracken, dry heath/acid grassland mosaic, inundation vegetation, acid/neutral flush
and standing water. The condition and individual characteristics of all habitats will discussed
throughout this report.
The reservoir itself was not included as a compartment; no vegetation was visible within the water
at any point during the survey.
The full list of habitats present on site are presented as a key on the Phase 1 maps in Appendix A.
A species list for each habitat within each compartment has been recorded (Appendix 1). The
complete species list for the site can be found in Appendix 2.
4 Compartment Descriptions
4.1 Compartment A
Compartment A is located to the east of Mortimer Lane. It has a central grid reference of SK 23458
98685.
This compartment is part of the Yorkshire Water property boundary, but is not included in the
Sheffield City Council LWS boundary.
The compartment was not surveyed due to time constraints. If a repeat survey is carried out in the
spring, the compartment should be fully surveyed and a species list compiled.
Compartment A has been mapped using Google Earth satellite photography. It is a rectangle of
largely single species coniferous plantation. It is bounded by stone walls topped with fencing. There
is some damp grassland at its southwestern edge with some native species shrubs scattered at the
open edges.
4.2 Compartment B
Field Survey
Compartment B is situated to the west of Mortimer Lane, which forms its eastern boundary. It has
a central grid reference of SK 23299 98665.
The compartment is within both the Yorkshire Water and LWS boundaries.
This compartment was accessible and surveyed by walk-over and also with binoculars from the
southern edge. Standing water and boggy areas made some access difficult, particularly towards
the centre of the compartment.
The compartment boundaries are formed of stone walls to the south, east and north, with an
additional wall creating a small sub-compartment to the north. A line of mature sycamore Acer
pseudoplatanus with occasional other species (oak Quercus sp., birch Betula sp., holly Ilex
aquifolium) is present around the eastern and southern boundaries of the compartment, adjacent
to the stone walls. There are several young oak trees in the northeast corner.
A public footpath is accessed from a gate to Mortimer Road and crosses the compartment across to
the west, turning north towards Edge Cliff Brook. The footpath appears to be regularly used and is
not overgrown.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 8 Reference :0606.17

The compartment is a mostly rectangular area of felled conifer, with cut stumps remaining in situ,
that has been replanted with a mixture of deciduous and coniferous species. To the north of the
footpath the open ground has been replanted with deciduous species with tree guards still in place.
Species include oak, rowan Sorbus aucuparia and holly, with a number of failed plantings. There are
older (presumably self-set) grey willow Salix cinerea, goat willow Salix caprea, silver birch Betula
pendula and rowan trees growing among the replanting, along with a small number of coniferous
species.
The ground flora north of the footpath is varied with extensive neutral/acid flushes dominated by
soft rush Juncus effusus, and large areas of ferns, tufted hair grass Deschampsia cespitosa, rosebay
Chamaerion angustifolium, willowherb Epilobium sp. and marsh thistle Cirsium palustre. A small
area of bulrush Typha latifolia-dominated swamp is present in the northwest corner [Target Note
6]. There are a number of small mammal holes present and various types of fungi.
To the south of the footpath the area has been replanted with mixed species including 4 to 8 foot
high conifers, younger deciduous species still in tree guards and older (presumably self-set) birch
and willow species. Again there are a number of failed plantings.
The ground flora to the south has large patches of rosebay. There are extensive areas of soft rush
running through the area indicating wetter ground grading into neutral/acid flushes, including some
small amounts of sphagnum moss Sphagnum sp., and some small areas of standing water.
Towards the western edge of this compartment is a strip of dense birch scrub and some much
larger/older trees/saplings, still with a lot of soft rush in the ground flora.
Mosses and fungi are present in the ground flora in many areas of the compartment.
Issues
The deciduous tree planting appears to include a mixture of rowan, birch, oak, holly and possibly
other species. There is a higher failure rate in the wetter areas of the compartment for these species.
There is a small amount of dumped growing material (usually associated with growing cannabis)
near the gated entrance to the footpath. Presumably this is a target area for fly tipping.
Rhododendron Rhododendron ponticum is present at Target Note 5.
Recommendations for ecological improvement
The tree guards should be removed from failed plantings. Replanting could be considered, bearing
in mind that a number of trees (willows, birches and conifers) have already self-set around the
planted areas. Any replanting should take into account the very wet nature of the site underfoot.
Although dominated by soft rush, the wet flushes and small areas of standing water support a
different mixture of species than found over the majority of the site, including sphagnum moss,
adding to the diversity of habitats present. As the plantation grows these wet flushes may dry out.
Management of this area should include plans to accommodate wet flushes in order to retain some
of this habitat.
Small mammal holes were located towards the north of the compartment. A small mammal survey
could be carried out to identify the species that may be present on site. This area could also possibly
be suitable for harvest mice, as they are known to build nests in areas of tufted hair grass and soft
rush; these nests could be searched for in the winter to see if there is a population present.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 9 Reference :0606.17

The stone wall along the public footpath is tumbledown; this provides a refuge area for amphibians
and reptiles and should ideally be left. Alternatively, if it is rebuilt, artificial refugia should be
installed in appropriate locations to compensate for the loss of this habitat feature.
Photographs – Compartment B
Footpath looking west
View into south from footpath showing wet areas and
conifer with self-set birch and willow
Young conifer within southern section
View into south part of compartment from Gill Royd Lane
Broadleaved tree planting in northern section
Failed tree planting within wet areas to north
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 10 Reference :0606.17

Small mammal holes in drier hummocks
Denser birch near boundary with Compartment C, wild
angelica
Example of standing water/wet flush Typha- dominated swamp in northwest corner [TN 6]
Bolete species, one of several fungi found
Sphagnum within wet flushes
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 11 Reference :0606.17

4.3 Compartment C
Field Survey
Compartment C is situated north of Gilroyd Lane and is sandwiched between Compartments B and
D. Edge Cliff Brook and the public footpath form its northern boundary. It has a central grid
reference of SK 23181 98707.
The compartment is within both the Yorkshire Water and LWS boundaries.
This compartment was accessible and surveyed by walk-over. There is a network of man-made
ditches and ponds present, particularly in the northern part of the compartment, which can impede
easy access across the area.
The compartment boundaries are formed of a stone wall along the south boundary, the public
footpath/Edge Cliff Brook at the north boundary, and a fence that goes around the entire
compartment. A tumbledown stone wall crosses the compartment near the centre [Target Note
45]. A strip of sycamore woodland adjoins the road along the south boundary, with dense
rhododendron and bramble Rubus fruiticosus agg. underneath.
The public footpath continues past the northeastern and northern boundary of this compartment.
There is a gate into the compartment along the northeastern edge. There is a track with gate access
from Gilroyd Lane running along the western boundary of this compartment, which is very wet
underfoot – this has been included in this compartment.
Along the northern boundary of the compartment is a narrow area of young mixed plantation, with
a densely packed mixture of conifers and deciduous species, largely birch.
The remainder of the compartment is a rectangular area of mature coniferous plantation. To the
north there is abundant Corsican pine Pinus nigra with occasional silver birch and other deciduous
species present. To the south there is a mixture of coniferous species including larch Larix sp., Sitka
spruce Picea sitenchis and lodgepole pine Pinus contorta, with young birch.
There is extensive rhododendron in the understory which appears to have regrown from being cut
back/removed in the past. There is a small amount of bilberry Vaccinium myrtillus, patches of
bramble and a number of ferns in the shrub layer, otherwise the ground flora is fairly bare.
There is a network of manmade drains/ditches with occasional ponds present, for example a large
pond at Target Note 8. The ditches and pond edges hold occasional patches of sphagnum moss,
identified as fringed bog moss Sphagnum fimbriatum. The ponds hold more diverse species
including common water starwort Callitriche stagnalis, pondweed Potamogeton sp. and floating
sweetgrass Glyceria fluitans.
There is a lot of fallen deadwood in the compartment and some conifers have been selectively
extracted, with conifer stumps present. A number of different fungi species are present, including
sulphur tuft Hypholoma fasciciulare and puffballs Lycoperdon sp taking advantage of the extensive
deadwood.
Issues
The main issue within this compartment is the paucity of ground flora. This has probably been
limited by both the extensive rhododendron present, and the dense shade/acidic needle litter
resulting from the conifer plantation.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 12 Reference :0606.17

Recommendations for ecological improvement
Selective thinning of the mature conifers to create open glades would allow other vegetation (most
likely dwarf shrubs such as bilberry and heather Calluna vulgaris) to develop. Pioneer species such
as birch and rowan would be likely to self-set if the space is opened up. Bramble would also be likely
to move in, so any glades would need to be regularly managed to achieve the desired effect.
The rhododendron needs to be kept in check to prevent it shading out ground flora. This is a large
task due to the extent of it within the compartment; if glades are created, these could be prioritised
to remove rhododendron in and adjacent to these areas.
The network of drains and ponds are botanically interesting. Additional ponds could be created
within the network to encourage aquatic species to develop. If ponds are created where trees have
been removed, it is possible that the additional sunlight will encourage other species to develop;
currently the species present are able to cope with the shade created by the plantation. Specific
planting around the ponds could take place e.g. planting of alder Alnus glutinosa.
The tumbledown stone wall will provide a refuge area for amphibians and reptiles. It should be left
in situ if possible.
Photographs – Compartment C
Compartment viewed from footpath near northwest
corner
Dense mixed plantation along northern edge of
compartment
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 13 Reference :0606.17

Mature conifer plantation with rhododendron, ferns and
bramble in the understory (north area)
Mature conifer plantation with rhododendron, deciduous
saplings, ditch just visible (south area)
Sycamore woodland strip at south edge
Ditch system within plantation
Pond at Target Note 8
Gate access in from Gilroyd Lane
Tumbledown wall within compartment [Target Note 45]
Fungi within compartment – sulphur tuft
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 14 Reference :0606.17

4.4 Compartment D
Field Survey
Compartment D is situated north of Gilroyd Lane and is sandwiched between Compartments C and
E. Edge Cliff Brook and the public footpath form its northern boundary. It has a central grid
reference of SK 23072 98752.
The compartment is within both the Yorkshire Water and LWS boundaries.
This compartment was partly accessible and surveyed by walk-over. DAFOR was not fully completed
for this compartment due to the difficulty of accessing some areas; in particular there is some
extremely dense mixed woodland to the north of the central fence, and the southwest corner
(marked Issues on the OS map) was not accessed.
The compartment boundaries are formed by a stone wall along the south boundary, a fence line
running along the south and east boundaries, Edge Cliff Brook and the public footpath along the
north boundary, and a stream and fencing along the west boundary (the fencing only present in the
southern half of the compartment).
The same gate access from Gilroyd Lane that allows ingress into Compartment C, allows access into
Compartment D. The access route is a wide track which has been taken over by scrub and tall
ruderals. There is also an informal access point at the northeastern corner of the compartment from
the public footpath [Target Note 9] which leads to a desire line path that quickly peters out.
Compartment D is a long compartment sloping gently downhill from south to north. The east edge
is straight, the west edge is curved, following old field boundary lines.
The area to the south is fenced round and comprises a mixed plantation of deciduous and coniferous
trees, mostly young sycamore with some larch, silver birch and red oak Quercus rubra, and very
sparse ground flora. There are patches of dense rhododendron in this area and smaller areas of
bilberry and bramble.
Along the western fence line is a strip of broad-leaved plantation woodland, mostly young to young
mature sycamore, birch and oak, with grasses and ferns in the ground flora.
The northern part of this compartment is not fenced, it has a similar mixed plantation of coniferous
and deciduous trees, with some very large red oak trees and some multistemmed red oaks. Some
areas are more conifer-dominated, and some more broadleaved-dominated. It is more open in this
area with signs of more recent felling that has removed a lot of conifer. Young silver birch is plentiful
and is regenerating along with red oak and spruce Picea sp.. There are a lot of fallen/trimmed
branches in the understory along with many ferns and a small number of ground flora indicating
acid characteristics. The ground is uneven and mossy. Several fungi species were noted.
A stream flows along the western edge of the compartment and there are linked man-made ditches
with sphaghum present, e.g. at Target Note 43. A large pond at Target Note 44 lies just on the edge
of the compartment, this pond is choked with floating sweet grass, pondweed, rushes and
sphagnum mosses present. Another pond is close by downstream at Target Note 41, this pond has
bulrush, water starwort, pondweed, sphagnum and tufted hair grass present.
Common frog was noted in this compartment around the wetter areas.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 15 Reference :0606.17

Issues
Rhododendron was noted in this compartment, with some particularly dense areas to the south.
This will shade out other species and is likely to spread over time.
Recommendations for ecological improvement
The more open area to the north will be infilled quickly by silver birch and other regenerating
deciduous species. This area could be left to regenerate naturally; alternatively some interplanting
of other native species could be considered, particularly if additional conifer is removed.
The network of drains and ponds are ecologically interesting. Additional ponds could be created
within the network to encourage aquatic species to develop. If ponds are created where trees have
been removed, it is possible that the additional sunlight will encourage other species to develop;
currently the species present are able to cope with the shade created by the plantation. Specific
planting around the ponds could take place e.g. planting of alder. The stream down to the reservoir
valley should be protected from any works that may disturb it in the future.
Photographs – Compartment D
Desire line access into the compartment at southeast edge
[Target Note 9]
Sycamore with dense rhododendron to south of
compartment
Mixed plantation woodland to south of site, from access
track
View into woodland towards centre of compartment from
access track
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 16 Reference :0606.17

Large old red oak – multistemmed – to north of
compartment
Mixed plantation to north – fairly open
Regenerating silver birch to north Pond at Target Note 44
Pond at Target Note 41
General view into compartment
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 17 Reference :0606.17

General view into compartment
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 18 Reference :0606.17

4.5 Compartment E
Field Survey
Compartment E is situated north of Gilroyd Lane with Compartment D forming its eastern
boundary. The compartment is an extended strip of land sloping from Gilroyd Lane down to the
water line. It covers a number of areas marked as separate fields on the OS map, including the area
marked as Spring Moor and the area marked as Gill Royd Spring. It has a central grid reference of SK
22513 99022.
The compartment is within both the Yorkshire Water and LWS boundaries.
There is no public footpath access into this compartment. Most of it is accessible by getting onto
the shore line or climbing over a number of gates present into the site from Gilroyd Lane. There are
areas within the compartment that are difficult to access due to vegetation. Most of the
compartment has been walked over or surveyed with binoculars; the area round Gill Royd Spring
has not been accessed but was surveyed from the road.
The compartment boundaries are formed by a stone wall along the south boundary to Gilroyd Lane
and a partially fenced boundary along the east, with a stream running down to meet Edge Cliff
Brook. The compartment narrows to the west and meets Gilroyd Lane. The northern edge is
unbounded, opening out onto the reservoir.
There are a number of internal stone walls within the compartment, marking old field boundaries.
These have been marked on the Phase 1 map when encountered, it is possible that they extend for
further than mapped around the Gill Royd Spring area.
There is a strip of mature sycamore along most of the edge with Gilroyd Lane, with occasional other
broad-leaved shrubs and trees such as hawthorn. There are gates into the site at various points
along the lane; at Target Note 39 there is gated access to a mown section with a number of beehives
present. Harebell Campanula rotundifolia is present at Target Note 34. There are several examples
of invasive species arising from dumped garden waste, including variegated yellow archangel
Lamiastrum galeobdolon subs. argentum at Target Note 39 and montbretia Crocosmia x
crocosmiiflora at Target Note 40. Rhododendron is present under the sycamore in places.
Access through the gates is possible, but generally the tracks peter out and are covered over by
scrub and bramble, indicating they have not been used regularly.
The majority of the compartment is made up of areas of predominantly conifer plantation, of
different ages and compositions. The area around Spring Moor is an open, mature scots pine
plantation to the south, changing into a denser, younger area of mixed conifers and broadleaved
trees nearer to the public footpath to the north. The mixed area has been thinned more recently
and has dense bramble and ferns in the understory, making it difficult to access.
Further west there are stands of mature mixed conifers including larch, scots pine and other species,
with areas of lodgepole pine to the western edge. There are very few shrubs in the understory;
occasionally there are areas of rhododendron. The ground flora is almost exclusively ferns, some
very large, and bramble. These areas are relatively homogenous compared to other parts of the site.
Rarely, there is standing deadwood in this area.
There is a small presence of ancient woodland indicator species including bluebell Hyacinthoides
non-scripta, wood sorrel Oxalis acetosa and yellow pimpernel Lysimachia nemorum, associated with
the edges of the plantations where there are broad-leaved trees present.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 19 Reference :0606.17

Along the northern edge of the woodland along the entirety of the compartment is a line of dense
willow scrub, mostly grey willow with some goat willow. When the reservoir is full, this would form
the vegetation at the edge of the waterline.
There are a number of wet areas and man-made ditches and ponds within the compartment,
particularly in the central and eastern areas, with species such as water starwort and sphagnum
moss present. Some of the watercourses/issues are large and exit into the reservoir, with a quick
water flow.
There is a large extent of exposed sandy soil at the water's edge, which has been exposed for long
enough for an interesting mix of marginal and ephemeral species to establish, including various
members of the Persicaria family and species such as marsh pennywort Hydrocotyle vulgaris, wild
marjoram Origanum vulgare, marsh violet Viola palustris, greater birdsfoot trefoil Lotus
pedunculatus and toadrush Juncus bufonius. New Zealand pygmyweed Crassula helmsii is present.
Human activity within the compartment includes fire pits, an area of target practice [Target Note
37] and scattered debris (mostly drinks cans).
Rabbit field signs are present within the compartment, as are snuffle holes made by badgers. A
probable sparrowhawk nest was located at Target Note 42 and several bird strikes and carcasses
were noted nearby.
Issues
A number of invasive species are present in the compartment. Some of them arise from dumped
garden waste and will be relatively easy to control, for example the montbretia and variegated
yellow archangel, which can be dug out and disposed of. Rhododendron is scattered under conifer
and at the Gilroyd Lane edge. New Zealand pygmyweed is present on the shoreline; if this could be
eradicated, it would allow the native species present to flourish.
Human activity is noticeable along the shoreline, with fire pits, an airgun target practice area and
litter from drinking alcohol seen in various places.
Recommendations for ecological improvement
The invasive species should be removed or appropriately controlled where possible. Rhododendron
is only occasional within the compartment, so could be targeted to keep it from expanding and
shading out what ground flora there is.
Selective thinning of the mature conifers to create open glades would allow other vegetation (most
likely dwarf shrubs such as bilberry and heather Calluna vulgaris) to develop. Pioneer species such
as birch and rowan would be likely to self-set if the space is opened up. Bramble would also be likely
to move in, so any glades would need to be regularly managed to achieve the desired effect.
Alternatively, if the conifers are ready to be felled, part of the area could be replanted with native
broad-leaved trees, particularly around the areas where ancient woodland indicator species have
been located. It is possible that the seed bank holds other ancient woodland indicator species that
may return in the right conditions.
It should be noted that this area of mature conifer is supporting birds of prey; some mature conifer
should be retained for this purpose, although this could be thinned to encourage vegetation to grow
on the woodland floor, and improve habitat for breeding and hunting for birds such as Goshawk and
Sparrowhawk. The longer term retention of areas of mature conifer needs to be planned in to site
management.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 20 Reference :0606.17

The network of drains and ponds to the east of the compartment add diversity to the botany on
site. Additional ponds could be created within the network to encourage aquatic species to develop.
If ponds are created where trees have been removed, it is possible that the additional sunlight will
encourage other species to develop; currently the species present are able to cope with the shade
created by the plantation. Specific planting around the ponds could take place e.g. planting of alder.
The marginal/inundation vegetation strip that has arisen along the exposed sandy shore contains
species not found elsewhere on the site. Unfortunately the vegetation has been invaded by New
Zealand pygmyweed. Pygmyweed is notoriously difficult to eradicate and removal attempts may
end up having unwanted impacts on the desirable marginal vegetation. However, it is also likely that
this area will be covered by water in the future, if the reservoir is filled to capacity, further spreading
the invasive downstream. With this in mind it may be better to attempt control now as part of wider
habitat improvement works. It should be noted that removing the species from a headwater site
such as Midhope reservoir will make control of the species downstream more effective.
Human activity on site indicates a desire to visit the waterline. If a public access path is created this
should include access to or near the waterline, however there are issues of biosecurity (spreading
pygmyweed) and disturbance to wildlife (nesting birds of prey, badger activity) that will need to be
considered carefully.
Photographs – Compartment E
Woodland at eastern end of compartment
Edge of younger mixed broadleaf/conifer woodland to
east
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 21 Reference :0606.17

Mature conifer woodland to centre of compartment, with
large male fern Dryopteris filix-mas
Mature conifer woodland to centre of compartment,
dense ferns in ground flora
Strip of sycamore at Gilroyd Lane boundary, with mature
conifer behind
Beehives at Target Note 39
Example of overgrown tracks from gate access points on
Gilroyd Lane
Larch-dominated plantation area
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 22 Reference :0606.17

Strip of willow scrub along top of waterline
Streams/issues running into reservoir
Looking east to exit point of Edge Cliff Brook
Bird of prey nest (likely sparrowhawk)
Evidence of bird of prey kills Shooting practice at Target Note 37
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 23 Reference :0606.17

4.6 Compartment F
Field Survey
Compartment F is located along the northeastern section of the site, running east to west along
Edge Cliff Brook. It is an extended strip of land that slopes steeply from southwest to northeast. It
covers three walled areas as marked on the OS map. Its central grid reference is SK 23136 98937.
The compartment is within the Yorkshire Water forestry boundary, but is excluded from the Local
Wildlife Site boundary.
There is no public footpath access to the compartment. It was surveyed with binoculars from the
south and west edges so the species list should be considered incomplete, although the
compartment seemed very homogenous. The distribution/abundance data should also be
considered with caution.
The compartment is bounded by stone walls along the north, east and south edges; there is a
defunct fence line along the public footpath which forms the western boundary. Along the southern
boundary there is a wet ditch along the northern side of the wall, running parallel with the public
footpath to the south of the wall; species along the ditch/footpath have been included in this
compartment (species within Edge Cliff Brook have not been included). There are stone walls within
the compartment, running from south to north, which are visible on the OS map.
The entirety of the compartment is a rectangular area of young mature even-aged Scots Pine
plantation. There is very little shrub layer within the plantation woodland; what exists is mostly
young deciduous saplings of rowan and holly, mostly near the open edge, and scattered bramble.
The ground flora appears to be largely comprised of ferns with some small areas of grass; there is a
little wood sorrel present along the western footpath edge.
The wet ditch has a few species not found within the rest of the compartment, including marsh
thistle, tufted hair grass and soft rush. Alder is present within the wetter areas.
There are some fallen pines within the plantation, some of which have been cut down. Otherwise it
does not appear that the plantation has been recently thinned.
Common frog and deer slots were noted near the southern edge, and several common butterflies
were recorded.
Issues
The only issue with this compartment is the low number and diversity of species present, typical for
a mature conifer plantation.
Recommendations for ecological improvement
Selective thinning of the mature conifers to create open glades would allow other vegetation (most
likely dwarf shrubs such as bilberry and heather) to develop. Pioneer species such as birch and
rowan would be likely to self-set if the space is opened up. Bramble and bracken would also be likely
to move in, so any glades would need to be regularly managed to achieve the desired effect.
Thinning or selective felling could take place along the edges of the footpath to introduce a strip of
native broad-leaved trees; there are already some saplings present at the open edges which could
be allowed to develop, or planting of suitable trees such as oak and alder (in the wetter margin)
could be undertaken.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 24 Reference :0606.17

Alternatively, if the conifers are ready to be felled, part of the area could be replanted with native
broad-leaved trees, or a mixed plantation of conifers and broad-leaved trees could be put in, as has
been done in Compartment B.
It is advisable to retain some mature conifer stands for birds such as siskin, goldcrest and crossbill.
Photographs – Compartment F
Public footpath along south of compartment
Public footpath turning northwest to go uphill
Public footpath looking downhill to the south – Cpt F on
left of photograph
Looking up from public footpath into Scots pine
plantation, wet ditch to foreground
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 25 Reference :0606.17

Scots pine plantation, with fallen/cut trees
Side view into plantation from public footpath running
uphill
Defunct fencing at western boundary of compartment
Wood sorrel within open western edge of woodland
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 26 Reference :0606.17

4.7 Compartment G
Field Survey
Compartment G is a long, steep bank that runs in an east to west/northwest direction along the
northern boundary of the site, marked on the OS map as Edge Cliff. It has a central grid reference
of SK 22647 99231.
The compartment is within both the Yorkshire Water and LWS boundaries.
The compartment was surveyed by walking around its perimeter, following both the public footpath
and the desire line footpath at the boundaries, and using binoculars to look into the compartment.
The bank rises sharply from southwest to northeast and is bounded by a stone wall along the length
of its northern/northeastern boundary. There is a part-infilled gate entrance towards the east. The
south/southwestern boundary is marked by the desire line path that forms the edge of adjoining
Compartments H and I. A public footpath climbs the hill to form the eastern boundary and runs
along the edge of the stone wall, with the plantation slope falling away quickly. The northernmost
edge is gated and adjoins the grassland/heathland mosaic at Compartment J.
The entire compartment is comprised of mature coniferous plantation. Towards the southeast, the
plantation is of mixed coniferous species, with Corsican pine, larch, spruce and others. Generally the
woodland is dense and there is little ground flora present, with deep needle litter and a scattering
of grasses and ferns near the open edges towards the north, and a few deciduous trees along the
southern edge. The footpath is grassy with bracken, ferns and occasional flowering plants present.
Towards the northern end of the compartment the bank becomes particularly steep; here the
planting is almost exclusively European larch and Japanese larch Larix kaempferi, with a more open
aspect. Ground flora is limited to grasses, ferns and a few flowering plants, including some bluebell
along the footpath edge near the boundary with Compartment J.
A badger latrine and snuffle holes were located along the footpath, and there were several possible
animal trackways into the plantation woodland from both north and south. It is likely that an active
badger sett is present in this area of woodland or very close by, although it was not searched for
due to time constraints.
Issues
A small amount of rhododendron was noted at Target Note 14.
Recommendations for ecological improvement
The majority of the plantation is dense and mature, with such deep shade that the lower branches
of the trees have died back and there is very little ground cover other than leaf litter. This dense
conifer will provide habitat for specialised species such as siskin and goldcrest, so some should be
retained. Some could be clear felled or thinned as appropriate to allow light to reach the ground; if
clear felled, this could then be replanted with mixed broadleaves and conifer, or allowed to
regenerate naturally to see if heathland will move in to what is presumably a very acidic soil profile.
Badger is active in the area; the relevant local badger group should be contacted to see if the sett is
already known about. Any development or woodland activity in this area should consider the
potential impact on badger.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 27 Reference :0606.17

Photographs – Compartment G
Public footpath along east edge of compartment – Cpt G
on right of photograph
Public footpath along northern boundary (looking west)
Public footpath along northern boundary near western
end/Compartment J
Dense conifer plantation to east– note needle litter
More open larch plantation to west, viewed from top
Larch plantation to west viewed from south path
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 28 Reference :0606.17

Active badger latrine at Target Note 10
Animal trackway running down into dense plantation
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 29 Reference :0606.17

4.8 Compartment H
Field Survey
This is a linear compartment situated between the eastern/southeastern shore of the reservoir and
the steep wooded bank up to the northern boundary, Compartment G. The desire line footpath
running along the bottom of the wooded bank has been used as the eastern/northeastern boundary
of the compartment. The west/southwest boundary is the edge of the reservoir. The central grid
reference for the compartment is SK 22695 99117.
The compartment is within both the Yorkshire Water forest plan boundary and the LWS boundary.
The survey was conducted largely from the desire line path, and the shoreline/exposed stone
walling on this edge was not accessed, but was surveyed with binoculars where possible. Where the
shoreline has been exposed for long enough for ephemeral/inundation vegetation to develop, this
appears to be similar
Compartment H slopes down from northeast to southwest to the reservoir and is largely composed
of extensive areas of bracken, with areas of oak-dominated broadleaved woodland (with bracken in
the undergrowth), and a line of willow-dominated scrub along the shoreline. There are occasional
small areas of heather and bilberry where bracken has not taken over.
There are several remnant coppice oaks within an area of dense oak and holly at Target Note 11.
The area of oak is one of the few large stands of semi-natural broad-leaved woodland present on
site.
Snuffle holes and trackways that are likely to have been made by badgers are present in the
compartment [Target Note 12]. These are probably linked to the trackways and field signs noted in
Compartment G.
Issues
The extensive bracken shades out more ecologically valuable plants and reduces the ability of plants
such as heather and bilberry to regenerate. However, bracken can be an important nesting, feeding
and roosting habitat for certain moorland birds such as stonechat.
There is some rusty barbed wire fencing along part of the reservoir edge which needs to be replaced.
Recommendations for ecological improvement
The remnant coppice oak trees at Target Note 11 are a feature with potential local history as well
as wildlife value, they should be protected from any works to the site. If any interpretation is put in
place for the site, they could be used as an example of woodland management.
The extensive stands of bracken could be selectively reduced and managed to create a habitat of
scattered stands instead. This would maintain habitat for the birds that require bracken, while
allowing more diverse heathland species such as heather and bilberry to recolonise. As bracken
management requires sustained effort, it may be best to concentrate removal efforts at the
northern edge, where it adjoins Compartment I.
Badger is active in the area; the relevant local badger group should be contacted to see if the sett is
already known about. Any development or woodland activity in this area should consider the
potential impact on badger.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 30 Reference :0606.17

Photographs – Compartment H
Desire line footpath at edge of conifer plantation
Dense stands of bracken
Patches of heather where bracken has not encroached
Willow scrub edging the top of the stone wall at the
waterline
Rusty barbed wire fence within bracken at edge
Extensive bracken; Cpt E visible across water
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 31 Reference :0606.17

Remnant coppice oak within woodland at Target Note 11
Possible animal trackway running down to reservoir
Desire line through dense area of oak/holly woodland
Desire line through oak woodland near east edge
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 32 Reference :0606.17

4.9 Compartment I
Field Survey
This is a relatively small, linear compartment situated between the eastern shore of the reservoir
and the steep wooded bank up to the eastern/northeastern boundary (Compartment G). The
central grid reference is SK 22465 99558.
This compartment is within both the Yorkshire Water and LWS boundaries.
The desire line footpath that runs along the base of the coniferous plantation forms the eastern
boundary. The western boundary is formed by the water’s edge; there is a small portion of the site
that is walled to the northwest. There is no physical boundary to the south. The north boundary is
formed by a fence that encloses a dam building and associated land.
The compartment is fully accessible apart from the exposed stone edge of the reservoir, which was
surveyed using binoculars.
The compartment is an area of mixed dry dwarf shrub heath, semi-improved acid grassland and dry
heath/acid grassland mosaic, with frequent heather and bilberry and a small amount of crowberry
Empetrum nigrum common bent Agrostis capillaris is the most frequently occurring grass. There are
small amounts of grassland species such as common sorrel Rumex acetosa, meadow vetchling
Lathyrus pratensis and common cat’s ear Hypochaeris radicata. Wood sage Teucrium scorodonia is
occasionally present along the footpath edges.
A narrow strip of birch and willow scrub is intermittently growing out of the top of the stone lined
banks of the reservoir at the maximum water line. In the northeast there is a large area of birchdominated
scrub adjacent to the larch plantation on the bank. There is scattered birch growing over
the heather.
There is an extensive area of bracken along the edge with some oak (sessile Quercus petraea, English
Quercus robur and hybrid) towards the southern end of the compartment. There are occasional
deciduous trees at the edge of the conifer woodland, with young birch and bramble forming small
areas of dense scrub.
The low water level has exposed the stone facing of the reservoir on this side, and ephemeral plants
are growing in the joins of the stonework.
A number of tumbledown stones are present along the desire line path, which could be suitable
refugia for reptiles; common frogs were seen in the area. A small number of invertebrates were
noted within the compartment e.g. meadow brown butterfly. The disused stone building could be
used as a roost by bats and possibly for nesting by birds.
Issues
The extensive bracken to the south of the compartment shades out more ecologically valuable
plants and reduces the ability of plants such as heather and bilberry to regenerate. However,
bracken can be an important nesting, feeding and roosting habitat for certain moorland birds such
as stonechat.
Young birch is present scattered over the heathland; if left unmanaged this area will start to succeed
to woodland.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 33 Reference :0606.17

Recommendations for ecological improvement
The area of heathland is currently in good condition and is a valuable habitat within the context of
the site, where there are very few areas of extensive heathland. It is also valuable in the context of
the wider landscape, as lowland heathland is a priority for nature conservation as it is a rare and
threatened habitat.
This area should be targeted for positive management, including the removal of encroaching birch
and bramble scrub, and the reduction of the extensive bracken that starts towards the south of the
compartment.
The disused building should be surveyed for the presence of bats. The building is one of the few
stone structures present on site; a bat dropping was located in the tunnel of the causeway in the
adjacent Compartment J, and it is possible that this building is suitable for use by roosting bats.
If and when conifers are extracted from the wooded bank in Compartment G, the extraction route
should attempt to protect the heathland from damage.
Photographs – Compartment I
View of compartment from northeast corner
View over heathland towards disused building
Extensive heather
Birch scrub and bramble encroachment on heathland
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 34 Reference :0606.17

Exposed stone facing of reservoir
Pile of stones from fallen wall – possible refugia
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 35 Reference :0606.17

4.10 Compartment J
Field Survey
This is a large triangular compartment at the northernmost end of the site, with a central grid
reference of SK 22439 99718.
The compartment lies within the LWS boundary, but is not included in Yorkshire Water’s forest plan.
The south boundary is formed largely by the reservoir edge, which is topped by a stone wall. The
compartment slopes fairly steeply from north to south, meeting Midhope Hall Lane; stone walls
form the boundary to the north and along the public footpath running along the eastern boundary
edge. The west boundary is formed by a steep bank up to Hagg Wood (Compartment K).
The compartment is fully accessible.
The eastern half of the compartment is a dry heath/acid grassland mosaic, with abundant common
bent, frequent mat grass Nardus stricta, heath bedstraw Galium saxatile and tormentil Potentilla
erecta, and occasional wavy hair grass Deschampsia flexuosa covering frequent dwarf shrubs of
heather and bilberry, which appear to be kept low to the ground by grazing sheep. There are very
few other species present; the area is homogenous.
There are various structures present (mounds and steep-banked gullies) where heather dominates;
these have been mapped as areas of acid dry dwarf shrub heath. These are likely to be old quarry
sites.
A wet ditch is present at the base of the slope near the footpath, marked by a line of soft rush.
The western side of the compartment is man-made with steep terraced banks, which have been
mown; here the habitat is acid grassland with very few dwarf shrubs present, and again is very
consistent in terms of species mix.
Various reservoir structures are present including a long spillway and a tunnel/outlet; a bat dropping
was located inside the tunnel.
A short steep bank at the western boundary between the spillway and Hagg Wood (Compartment
K) is vegetated with heather and bilberry, and occasional young conifer species.
There was a good assemblage of invertebrates within this compartment, and evidence of rabbits
was found.
Issues
No detrimental features were noted in this compartment.
Recommendations for ecological improvement
The area is heavily grazed by sheep, which are maintaining the compartment as a
grassland/heathland mosaic. If sheep were removed, or excluded from the eastern portion of the
compartment, it is likely that the area would develop into acid dry dwarf shrub heath. This may be
desirable if the landowner wishes to increase the amount of heathland present on site.
The steeply terraced dam wall is maintained as short cut grassland. This may be a necessary feature
for reservoir maintenance. If it is not essential to maintain the grass as low-cut, it could be cut less
frequently to allow plants to flower and potentially increase the availability of nectar and breeding
sites for the invertebrates present.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 36 Reference :0606.17

Wetland scrapes could be created within the compartment, if it is thought that these would be able
to hold water and would not interfere with the operation of the reservoir. These would encourage
bird species such as Lapwing and Snipe to feed and breed. Scrapes/wetland areas would probably
need to be fenced off to prevent grazing sheep from damaging nests.
Photographs – Compartment J
Public footpath access in southeast corner
View over grassland/heathland mosaic looking north
Grazed off heather and bilberry within the mosaic
Structures covered in heather
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 37 Reference :0606.17

Gully with heather looking to Midhope Hall Lane
Spillway structures, mown acid grassland, vegetated bank
up to Hagg Wood
Steep terraced mown reservoir structure with heather
bank to east
Wall and path along top of reservoir (south boundary)
View from south downhill to northwest
View from heather bank along boundary with Hagg Wood
down to spillway
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 38 Reference :0606.17

Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 39 Reference :0606.17

4.11 Compartment K
Field Survey
This is a mostly rectangular shaped compartment at the northwesternmost end of the site, with a
central grid reference of SK 22332 99835. This compartment is marked on the OS map as Hagg
Wood.
The compartment lies within both the Yorkshire Water forest plan and the LWS boundary.
The boundaries to the north and east are made up of walls and some fencing around a private
property backing onto the site from Midhope Lane. The southern edge is unbounded and abuts a
steep slope down to the reservoir spillway (Compartment J). At the western edge, the boundary is
formed by a track giving access to Reservoir House.
There is no public footpath access into the site; the gate from Midhope Lane is locked as the track
leads to a private residence. It is accessible by coming along a desire line path up from the reservoir
shoreline.
The compartment comprises a rectangular area dominated by conifer plantation woodland, mostly
European larch, Scots pine and lodgepole pine. The track giving access to Reservoir House has
introduced shrubs (including mature rhododendron) on either side.
There is no shrub layer and very little ground flora, with grasses including common bent and
creeping soft grass dominant. At the southeast corner there is a small area of acid grassland
dominated by wavy hair grass and heath bedstraw. The woodland has a very open character. Fungi
are present.
At Target Note 17 there is a line of three large English oak trees with pollard shapes, with bluebell
underneath. These are older than the surrounding plantation woodland and are potentially old
boundary oaks.
There are some signs of woodland management (cut stumps etc.) near the western boundary and
there are some fallen trees within the main compartment area.
There are several old bird boxes within the woodland which have no lids or which have holes which
have been enlarged (perhaps by woodpecker?). Sheep were not present during the survey but their
droppings were found, indicating the land may be occasionally grazed by sheep entering from
Compartment J.
A washing line was strung between two trees near the house marked as Reservoir Cottage, and
some children’s’ toys were present; the inhabitants of the cottage use the woodland as an extension
of their private garden.
Issues
Rhododendron has been planted along the trackway to the west of the site, this could be a source
for rhododendron spreading further into the compartment although there is no evidence of this
happening at the moment.
Recommendations for ecological improvement
The ground flora is not very diverse. Selective thinning of the mature conifers to create open glades
(as has happened naturally where trees have fallen) would allow other vegetation to develop. Given
the character of the soil, this is most likely to be dwarf shrubs such as bilberry and heather along
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 40 Reference :0606.17

with pioneer species such as birch and rowan. Bramble would also be likely to move in, so any glades
would need to be regularly managed to achieve the desired effect.
Bluebell is still present in the seed bank around the older oak trees. The conifers could be removed
entirely around the oak trees to create an open area, allowing more light to the woodland floor and
potentially allowing more diverse vegetation to develop. The oak trees should be protected and
retained.
The damaged bird boxes should be replaced and maintained.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 41 Reference :0606.17

Photographs – Compartment K
View within woodland with fallen trees
Some evidence of woodland management
One of the English oaks within the woodland at Target
Note 17
Two other English oaks in line with the first
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 42 Reference :0606.17

4.12 Compartment L
Field Survey
This is a roughly triangular compartment near the northernmost extent of the reservoir, to the south
of Midhope Lane, with a central grid reference of SK 22114 99660. It is marked on the OS map as a
disused quarry. It is relatively flat compared to the rest of the site, sloping very gently towards the
reservoir.
The compartment lies within both the Yorkshire Water forest plan and the LWS boundary.
The compartment is bounded by stone walls on top of steep open banks along the north and west
boundaries; the south to northeast boundary is formed by the edge of the reservoir. There is a small
triangular garden area linked to Reservoir House to the north, although included in the survey
boundaries this was not accessed.
There is no public footpath access into this compartment. Although there is a track marked on the
OS map, this quickly disappears towards the south under a dense growth of scrub and trees. On the
date of the survey, the gate at the south end of the track had fallen tree limbs against it and had
obviously not been opened for a significant period of time. This compartment can be considered to
be relatively undisturbed.
There is an exposed sandy shore along the reservoir edge; this has similar marginal/ephemeral
species present to those listed in Compartments M and E, continuing along the shoreline.
Amphibious bistort Persicaria amphibia, redleg Persicaria maculosa and marsh pennywort are the
most frequent species, with New Zealand pygmyweed scattered throughout.
A strip of willow scrub runs along the edge of the shoreline, and behind this is a wide strip of young
mixed woodland, with frequent Scots pine and other coniferous species, birch and less frequent
oak. This woodland is relatively open, with some open grassland along the edge, and has extensive
bramble and nettle Urtica dioica in the understory. The woodland extends around the edges of the
disused quarry area (see below).
The centre of the compartment is marked on the OS map as a disused quarry; this is an attractive
sheltered area of open heather, bilberry, wavy hair grass, rosebay, oak and birch that forms a mosaic
dry heath/acid grassland. There are a number of fungi present, including bolete species.
The steep sides of the quarry are vegetated by extensive heather and bilberry with scattered birch
and other trees present.
A number of invertebrates were present, including speckled wood butterflies.
Issues
New Zealand pygmyweed, an invasive species, is present along this part of the shoreline as it is
elsewhere; it is likely to be difficult to control. If this could be eradicated, it would allow the native
species present to flourish.
The area of open heathland is being scrubbed over by birch and bramble. Occasional bracken is also
present, which has the potential to become invasive.
Recommendations for ecological improvement
The marginal/inundation vegetation strip that has arisen along the exposed sandy shore contains
species not found elsewhere on the site. Unfortunately the vegetation has been invaded by New
Zealand pygmyweed. Pygmyweed is notoriously difficult to eradicate and removal attempts may
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 43 Reference :0606.17

end up having unwanted impacts on the desirable marginal vegetation. However, it is also likely that
this area will be covered by water in the future, if the reservoir is filled to capacity, further spreading
the invasive downstream. With this in mind it may be better to attempt control now as part of wider
habitat improvement works. It should be noted that removing the species from a headwater site
such as Midhope reservoir will make control of the species downstream more effective.
The sheltered area of dry heath/acid grassland mosaic and the dry dwarf shrub heath on the steep
quarry banks is attractive and an important habitat within the context of the site. It is relatively
undisturbed being neither grazed (as similar habitat is in Compartment J) or disturbed by a footpath
(as similar habitat is in Compartment I). It is in danger of being scrubbed over by birch or shaded out
by bracken; active management of this area to remove encroaching vegetation would maintain it as
a heathland/acid grassland area.
The woodland composition here is already a mixture of native broad-leaves and planted conifers.
The conifers could be selectively removed and native broad-leaves planted if necessary to make this
an area of primarily broad-leaved woodland around the edges of restored heathland.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 44 Reference :0606.17

Photographs – Compartment L
Vegetated shoreline viewed at south of compartment with
strip of willow vegetation visible
Persicaria species dominating the vegetation in this area
Some open grassland at the eastern edge of the woodland
strip
Open, young birch woodland with bramble in the
understory
Heathland being scrubbed over by bramble, birch Mixed conifer/broadleaved woodland at edge of
heathland
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 45 Reference :0606.17

Heathland/acid grassland mosaic in good condition
Heathland/acid grassland mosaic in good condition
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 46 Reference :0606.17

4.13 Compartment M
Field Survey
This compartment is located on the western side of the reservoir with a central grid reference of SK
22065 99414. It is situated between the water and an area of semi-improved acid grassland. It slopes
gently down from Shaw Lane to the water.
The compartment is within the Yorkshire Water forest plan, but is largely excluded (apart from the
very edge of the wooded area along the reservoir) from the LWS.
The eastern boundary is formed by the reservoir. The western boundary abuts onto an area of
grassland (Compartment N) in the northwest, and to Shaw Lane to the southwest, with a stone wall
along the road edge. The compartment narrows at the north point to the little-used gate giving
access through to Compartment L, and narrows to the south point to meet the outlet into the
reservoir for Shaw Brook.
There is no public footpath access to the compartment. There is a track marked on the OS map, but
the trackway has disappeared under dense bramble and saplings and this part of the plantation is
very difficult to walk through, with fallen trees and bramble obstructing progress. As a result some
of this plantation area was surveyed from the margins only. It is possible to access the shoreline of
the compartment by climbing down a bank from the road to the south of the site, or jumping across
Shaw Brook from the shoreline of Compartment E.
The compartment is largely an area of Scots pine and mixed conifer plantation. The south and
eastern parts of the plantation are fairly open, with rowan saplings, rhododendron and bramble
ground cover. The area to the west of the track marked on the OS map is of a similar age and aspect
but has very dense bramble and nettle covering occasional wet ditches. There are many fallen trees
which appear to have been left unmanaged in situ.
Along the edge of the plantation to the east [Target Note 28] there are some large patches of wood
sorrel, and greater stitchwort Stellaria holostea is present along the northern plantation boundary
[Target Note 25]. Along the eastern edge of the plantation is a strip of willow scrub, mostly grey
willow with some goat willow present. Fungi are present occasionally.
There is a large extent of exposed sandy soil at the water's edge, which has been exposed for long
enough for an interesting mix of marginal and ephemeral species to establish, including various
members of the Persicaria family and species such as marsh pennywort, wild marjoram, marsh
violet, gypsywort Lycopus europaeus, marsh speedwell Veronica scutellata and trifid bur marigold
Bidens tripartita. There are extensive areas of New Zealand pygmyweed, which is present both
scattered among the marginal plants, and as extensive large strips of dominant vegetation. Several
outflows cross the margin into the reservoir; these occasionally hold species such as sphagnum and
soft rush. The large outfall from Shaw Brook has small amounts of greater birdsfoot trefoil present
in the vegetation [Target Note 32].
At the south of the compartment there is a small steep bank vegetated by a mosaic of heath/acid
grassland with typical species including heather, bilberry, heath bedstraw, common bent and wavy
hair grass.
There are small mammal holes and rabbit burrows present within the heath/acid grassland mosaic,
and rabbit burrows are also present along the woodland edge further north. Deer tracks were
located near the little-used gate to the north.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 47 Reference :0606.17

Human activity in this area includes fire pits and a camping area along the shoreline. The dense
nature of the woodland to the west means that this is largely undisturbed.
Issues
New Zealand pygmyweed, an invasive species, is present along this part of the shoreline as it is
elsewhere; it is likely to be difficult to control. If this could be eradicated, it would allow the native
species present to flourish.
Rhododendron is present within the woodland in the more open areas.
Human activity along the shoreline could be detrimental particularly the setting of fires near areas
of pine.
Recommendations for ecological improvement
Pygmyweed is notoriously difficult to eradicate and removal attempts may end up having unwanted
impacts on the desirable marginal vegetation. However, it is also likely that this area will be covered
by water in the future, if the reservoir is filled to capacity, further spreading the invasive
downstream. With this in mind it may be better to attempt control now as part of wider habitat
improvement works. It should be noted that removing the species from a headwater site such as
Midhope reservoir will make control of the species downstream more effective.
The rhododendron in the understory of the eastern area of plantation should be controlled to
ensure it does not begin to shade out more desirable ground flora.
The outflows draining out to the reservoir are botanically interesting at their exit. However, the
network of drains noted within the woodland part of the compartment are shaded out by dense
bramble in many areas; if the bramble could be cleared or reduced, it would allow more light to the
woodland floor and to the drain network. This would be beneficial in terms of allowing a more
diverse flora to develop.
To create a more diverse ground flora generally, as well as clearing dense bramble, selective thinning
of the dense areas of conifer plantation could also be undertaken, or areas felled to create open
glades. If targeted around the areas where ancient woodland indicator species have already been
noted, this could support the survival and development of these species.
This area is relatively undisturbed, in part because it is so difficult to access. There is an opportunity
to open up the disused track from Shaw Lane to allow access into this area, however a number of
factors should be considered, including whether allowing access through to the area of heathland
in Compartment L is desirable, where the access route would exit and what the impact of extra
human activity would be in this area on both plants and animals.
The fallen trees could be crosscut and delimbed with the timber made into habitat piles to
encourage species such as reptiles, hedgehogs and invertebrates.
The outflow tunnel at Shaw Brook could be suitable for bats and should be surveyed.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 48 Reference :0606.17

Photographs – Compartment M
Outflow of Shaw Brook into the reservoir
Shaw Brook feeding into the reservoir – low water level.
Drains exiting into the reservoir, vegetation includes
sphagnum, toadrush, marsh pennywort, gypsywort
Inundation vegetation at reservoir edge, dominated by
Persicaria species
Extensive strips of New Zealand pygmyweed
New Zealand pygmyweed dominating the vegetation
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 49 Reference :0606.17

Strip of willow along the edge of the plantation woodland
Open Scots pine dominated plantation to east of
compartment with bramble understory
Extensive wood sorrel at edge of woodland [Target Note
28].
Dense bramble and nettle covering wet ditches in the west
part of the plantation makes access difficult.
View into the woodland from the edge of Shaw Lane.
Rabbit burrow and fungi
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 50 Reference :0606.17

Acid grassland/heathland mosaic at south of
compartment
Acid grassland/heathland mosaic looking downhill
Deer slots located at Target Note 24
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 51 Reference :0606.17

4.14 Compartment N
Field Survey
This compartment is located at the western boundary of the site, adjacent to Compartment M. It
has a central grid reference of SK 21915 99453. It is largely comprised of an open area of grasslandcovered
steep banking running from north/northwest to south/southeast.
The compartment is within the Yorkshire Water forest plan boundary, but not within the LWS
boundary.
The northern and northwestern boundaries are formed by stone walls that back onto open fields.
The south/southwestern boundary is formed by a stone wall to Shaw Lane. The compartment is
bounded to the east by the edge of the conifer plantation in Compartment M.
There is no public footpath access to this compartment. It is accessible by entering from the adjacent
compartments.
There are some steep and undulating areas within the compartment. The habitat is acid grassland,
with frequent wavy hair grass, tufted hair grass, bent, purple moor grass Molinia caerulea and heath
bedstraw. There are occasional other species such as sorrel, mat grass, bilberry and heather.
Saplings of broad-leaved trees are scattered along the edges, along with small areas of tall ruderal
such as nettle.
Wetter areas are indicated by small quantities of greater bird’s-foot trefoil, marsh thistle and soft
rush.
Issues
Some dumping of growing medium over the wall was noted.
Recommendations for ecological improvement
This area of semi-improved acid grassland is in good condition; it should be maintained as such by
occasional removal of encroaching scrub. There was no evidence of grazing noted, this could be a
method of controlling any scrub encroachment.
Photographs – Compartment N
View over acid grassland looking towards west
View over acid grassland and wetter area looking east
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 52 Reference :0606.17

View down into grassland bank from Shaw Lane boundary View along strip with tall ruderals along Shaw Lane –
Compartment M plantation visible
Walls at northern end of compartment
Waste dumped over the stone wall from Shaw Lane
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 53 Reference :0606.17

5 General recommendations from Phase 1 survey
There are several areas of acid dry dwarf shrub heath, semi-improved acid grassland and dry
heath/acid grassland mosaic on site that should be maintained and/or restored to prevent
succession to scrub.
Some of the conifer plantation should be retained, aiming to keep a variety of age profiles and stand
mixes. For example, plantations where the trees are tall with open ground flora beneath provide
good nesting and hunting habitat for raptors; Nightjar are known to use areas of clear fell and young
conifer plantations up to 15 years old for nesting.
Some of the denser plantation areas should be opened up by a mixture of selective thinning, the
creation of open glades, or potentially by clear felling if the trees are ready to be harvested. The
land opened up in this way is likely to revert to heather moorland or, in the wetter areas, there may
be acid flushes or marshy grassland. This will require regular management to ensure that the open
areas are not invaded by bracken, rhododendron, bramble or pioneer scrub species.
Increasing the amount of native broad-leaved trees by interplanting thinned areas, replanting clear
felled areas or allowing native trees to arrive naturally will provide additional habitat for wildlife.
Invasive species such as rhododendron should be managed appropriately, targeting areas where
they are most likely to make a difference to the quality of the habitat e.g. stopping bracken from
encroaching on the heathland, or removing dense bramble from the network of watercourses.
New Zealand Pygymweed is an invasive that grows around the damp margins of waterways and in
water up to 3m deep. It forms very dense stands which out-competes all other aquatic vegetation,
eliminates native flora and creates a poorer ecosystem for invertebrates, fish and amphibians. Its
three growth forms (terrestrial, emergent and submerged) grow throughout the year and there is
no dormant period. Pygmyweed is notoriously difficult to eradicate but in order to make control of
the species downstream more effective, it should be attempted here. The options include
chemical control or mechanical/manual control; chemical control is more suitable as mechanical
disturbance risks fragments entering the watercourse and spreading downstream. Sites where
pygmyweed has been removed need to be monitored regularly for at least 5 years post
eradication. It would also be important to check the watercourses/reservoirs upstream of
Midhope, to ensure that pygmyweed is not present and spreading from further up the water
system.
The wet flushes, manmade drains and ponds provide an additional habitat type within the
predominantly wooded area. They should be maintained and possibly extended, for example
additional ponds could be created to extend wetland habitat.
A diverse range of fungi were noted during the survey. A targeted fungi survey could be
commissioned to take place in the autumn to determine the value of the habitat for fungi.
It is highly likely that the area will be well used by foraging bats and a bat dropping was located in
Compartment J. Two static Anabat bat detectors were sited in the north and northeast of the site
for a night in late August; although the data has not yet been analysed, it is certain that bats are on
site and further surveys and management for bats should be carried out as appropriate.
Public access to the east of the site is via way of a public footpath, but the south/west of the site is
only accessible informally. To open up the site for visitors, a footpath could be created to access this
side of the reservoir. Some areas of the site should remain inaccessible however, to protect wildlife
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 54 Reference :0606.17

from interference. Access to the shoreline should be discouraged due to biosecurity and disturbance
concerns, as well as the problem of litter and inappropriate uses e.g. target practice.
As well as opening up physical access, interpretation could be put in place which could range from
the creation of a nature trail for the general public available on the internet, interpretation signage,
through to the building of a visitors centre to provide the appropriate literature, help and advice to
educate visitors, enhancing their visit to the site. Interpretation will encourage members of the
general public to become interested in wildlife and nature, if not already so.
6 Bird Survey
6.1 Methodology
6.2 Results
Dave Gash walked over the majority of the site on 12 th September 2017, noting all evidence of birds.
The temperature ranged between 11°C to 14°C, the wind was 20mph west, with cloud at 4/8ths and
light showers.
Raptors recorded were:
a. Hobby flying from north to south over the woodland on the eastern end of the site, before
flying south over the moorland.
b. Common Buzzard flying over and around the western end of the reservoir.
c. Kestrel hunting for food/prey on the moor and also in a grass field located at the eastern end
of the site.
d. A large nest was also found in the conifers on the south of the site, which is likely to be that
of a Sparrowhawk. Numerous carcasses of various bird species were found around the site,
again indicating the presence of this specific species.
Birds observed on the reservoir were Tufted Duck, Wigeon, Little Grebe, Mallard, Black Headed Gull,
Herring Gull and Lesser Black Backed Gull. No waders were recorded.
Other species noted were Blackbird, Robin, Wren, Song Thrush, Mistle Thrush, Dunnock, Great Tit,
Blue Tit, Coal Tit, Long Tailed Tit, Chiffchaff, Chaffinch, Tree Creeper, Goldfinch, Bullfinch, Goldcrest,
Siskin, Swallow, Great Spotted Woodpecker, Grey Wagtail, Meadow Pipit, Pheasant, Red Grouse,
Wood Pigeon, Jay and Carrion Crow.
6.3 Recommendations
Further bird survey/s are required during the breeding season, in order to obtain a more overall
picture of the breeding bird population and their behaviour.
The possibility of the installation of an Osprey nesting platform could be investigated. This will also
require a survey of fish stocks to determine if there is already a healthy population and if additional
stocking is required. Also, the fish stocks in the neighbouring Underbank and Langsett reservoirs
need to be surveyed and assessed.
The existing populations of conifers and dense scrub areas should be maintained to retain important
habitat for Siskin, Goldcrest and possibly Crossbill. Also, some thinning of trees is required in order
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 55 Reference :0606.17

to encourage vegetation to grow on the woodland floor. This thinning of trees will also provide bird
species such as Goshawk and Sparrowhawk with the habitat to hunt and breed.
The creation of woodland glades to encourage the ground flora to grow. This in turn will boost the
populations of invertebrates, on which numerous bird species feed.
The placing of grow baskets around the reservoir in specific areas, containing wetland plants, that
will create roosting, nesting and feeding habitats for wetland birds. Siting would need to
accommodate any future plans to bring the water storage levels back to full capacity.
Create wetland areas, where possible, in the grassland located immediately to the north of the
reservoir, so as to encourage bird species such as Lapwing and Snipe to feed and breed.
To allow Lapwing and Snipe to successfully establish themselves, the grazing of the grassland by
sheep should be limited to those times outside of the breeding season and/or fencing to create
protected areas should be installed. This will also benefit Skylark, which may be already present, but
weren’t recorded on the survey.
The placing of several bird viewing hides around the site, so as to encourage avid bird watchers and
the general public to view and identify bird species. These will cause the minimum of disruption to
the existing and migrant bird populations through human disturbance.
7 Otter Survey
7.1 Methodology
7.2 Results
Paul Liptrot surveyed the site for otter on 12 th August 2017. He walked around the perimeter of the
waterline, including the exposed stone facing of the dam wall, searching for spraints, feeding
remains and footprints. He also surveyed up past Hagg Bridge to Hagg Brook, along Edge Cliff Brook,
and went partway into the outflow tunnel for Shaw Brook.
No signs of otter were located. Hagg Brook was dry near Hagg Bridge.
7.3 Recommendations
Before any works to improve the site for otter are considered, the records for otter in the local area
should be checked to see if they are present. Otters must be within dispersal distance and perhaps
be passing through the area occasionally. Otherwise there is little reason to spend time and money
improving the site for otter.
The most likely location for otter nearby is along the Porter or Little Don river valley; the most likely
access point for otter to get to the reservoir would be by moving along Hagg Brook, which was dry
at the time of the survey. Any work to encourage otter would need to address the links with the
wider landscape to ensure that they could move freely.
The reservoir is considered largely unsuitable for otter at this time, due to the likely acidity level of
the water, the low or absent fish stocks, and the lack of any cover directly adjacent to the waterline
i.e. no suitable holts or laying up areas present. These would be the areas to target should any works
for otter be deemed suitable.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 56 Reference :0606.17

8 Appendix A – maps
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 57 Reference :0606.17

8.1 Compartment and Location Map
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 58 Reference :675.17

8.2 Phase 1 Habitat Map – Overview
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 59 Reference :0606.17

8.3 Phase 1 Habitat Map – Sheet A
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 60 Reference :0606.17

8.4 Phase 1 Habitat Map – Sheet B
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 61 Reference :0606.17

8.5 Phase 1 Habitat Map – Sheet C
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 62 Reference :0606.17

8.6 Target Notes
Table 1: Target Notes
1 Tumbledown stone wall.
2 Area of young deciduous plantation (tree guards present) and some conifer planting, self-sown birch
and willow species, tall ruderals and ferns underneath, with frequent acid/neutral flushes dominated
by soft rush.
3 Sphagnum moss present in flush, likely scattered in most of the flushes.
4 South of footpath, the open area is a young conifer plantation with self-set birch and willow species,
and extensive acid/neutral flushes dominated by soft rush. There is some deciduous planting in tree
guards particularly around the south.
5 Patch of rhododendron near footpath.
6 Area of swamp/marshy grassland with a stand of bulrush and tufted hair grass.
7 The understory of the conifer plantation is criss-crossed with a network of manmade ditches and
small ponds with extensive young rhododendron scattered throughout.
8 Pond with common water starwort, pondweed, floating sweetgrass, sphagnum. Sphagnum is
occasional within the network of ditches.
9 Desire line path into woodland.
10 Badger latrine and snuffle holes.
11 Several remnant coppice oaks within an area of dense oak and holly.
12 Snuffle holes and trackways – probable badger.
13 Badger tracks and snuffle holes.
14 Small amount of rhododendron.
15 A lot of tumbledown stones/rock in this area, frogs present, suitable refugia for reptiles.
16 Mosaic acid grassland/dwarf shrub heath with heather and bilberry grazed by sheep.
17 Three large English oak in a line, pollard shapes – possible old boundary oaks. Bluebell underneath.
18 Stone/concrete spillway structures associated with dam wall.
19 Large introduced shrubs line the trackway, including dense rhododendron.
20 Garden area associated with Reservoir House – not surveyed
21 Low water level has exposed the stone facing of the reservoir on this side. Ephemeral plants are
growing in the joins of the stonework.
22 Area of open heather, wavy hair grass, rosebay, brook, oak and birch that is recommended for habitat
restoration.
23 Track has disappeared under a dense growth of scrub and trees.
24 Deer tracks noted in this location.
25 Greater stitchwort present in the ground flora at edge of woodland.
26 Inundation vegetation strip includes marsh speedwell (at this target note only), patches of soft rush,
marsh violet, toad rush, marsh pennywort up to the edge of the willow scrub.
27 Extensive areas of New Zealand pygmyweed on vegetated margin.
28 Wood sorrel in ground flora at edge of woodland. Rabbit burrows and wild camping debris/fire pit.
29 Outflow with sphagnum, toad rush, marsh pennywort, amphibious bistort, soft rush, gypsywort, trifid
bur marigold, pearlwort and alder.
30 Marsh violet present.
31 Small mammal holes and rabbit burrows in grassland/heath mosaic.
32 Exposed margin has been vegetated by marsh pennywort, wild marjoram, water pepper, amphibious
bistort, toad rush, New Zealand pygmyweed. Small quantities of greater birdsfoot trefoil.
33 Animal holes (badger or rabbit) and bluebells.
34 Harebells near metal gate.
35 Wood sorrel in ground flora.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 63 Reference :675.17

36 Marginal vegetation includes marsh violet, marsh thistle, marsh pennywort, toad rush, lesser
spearwort, amphibious bistort, shoreweed, greater birdsfoot trefoil, sedges, tormentil, New Zealand
pygmyweed.
37 Airgun target practice area has been set up here.
38 Badger field signs.
39 Gated access to mown section with beehives. Variegated yellow archangel near gate.
40 Montbretia behind gate (dumped garden waste).
41 Pond with bulrush, sphagnum, water starwort, tufted hair grass, pondweed.
42 Large nest, likely Sparrowhawk.
43 Man-made ditch with sphagnum present.
44 Pond with floating sweet grass, pondweed, sphagnum, rushes.
45 Remnant tumbledown wall.
46 Wet area with sphagnum, marsh violet, heath bedstraw, tufted hair grass, soft rush, goat willow and
alder.
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 64 Reference :0606.17

9 Appendix B – Species List
9.1 DAFOR Scale & Grid References
D = Dominant; A = Abundant; F = Frequent; O = Occasional; R = Rare; P = Present (abundance not recorded). Grid references are taken as the central
point of the compartment unless they relate to a specific location.
9.2 Incidental Species
Scientific Name Common Name Date Site Name Distribution/Abundance Comments
Accipiter nisus Sparrowhawk nest 12/09/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment E Present Photo
Cervidae Deer 12/09/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment M Present
Cervidae Deer 18/08/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment F Present Slots in mud near stream
Maniola jurtina Meadow brown 18/08/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment I Present
Maniola jurtina Meadow brown 18/08/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment F Present
Meles meles Badger 18/08/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment H Present Snuffle holes and trackways
Meles meles Badger 18/08/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment G Present Active latrine, snuffle holes
Meles meles Badger 12/09/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment E Present Snuffle holes
Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit 12/09/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment E Present
Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit 12/09/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment M Present
Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit 18/08/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment J Present
Pararge aegeria Speckled wood 12/09/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment L Present
Pararge aegeria Speckled wood 18/08/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment F Present
Pieris rapae Large white 18/08/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment F Present
Rana temporaria Common frog 12/09/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment D Present In wet areas
Rana temporaria Common frog 12/09/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment M Present
Rana temporaria Common frog 18/08/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment I Present
Rana temporaria Common frog 18/08/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment F Present Near stream
Invertebrates 18/08/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment J Present
Small mammal 12/09/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment M Present
Small mammal 18/08/2017 Midhope Reservoir: Compartment B Present Mammal holes

9.3 Compartment B
Scientific Name Common Name Date Grid Ref Distribution/ Comments
Abundance
Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R Boundaries
Betula pendula Silver birch 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 A
Calluna vulgaris Heather 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Ilex aquifolium Holly 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R Planted and self-set
Leycesteria formosa Pheasant berry 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R Near entrance
Picea sp. Spruce sp. 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 A
Pinus sp. Pine sp. 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 A At least 2 different species
Quercus sp. Oak sp. 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R Planted, mature oak by N
boundary
Rhododendron ponticum Common rhododendron 18/08/2017 SK2328998713 R Near footpath - accurate
grid reference. Also present
along Gilroyd Road south
boundary.
Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Rubus ideaus Raspberry 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Salix caprea Goat willow 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 O
Salix cinerea Grey willow 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 O
Salix sp. Willow sp. 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 O Variety of ages
Sorbus aucuparia Rowan 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 O Planted and self-set
Angelica sylvestris Wild angelica 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R (LA) Locally abundant by
footpath to west
Centaurea nigra Common knapweed 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Chamerion angustifolium Rosebay 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 A
Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Cirsium palustre Marsh thistle 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Digitalis purpurea Foxglove 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Epilobium hirsutum Great willowherb 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Epilobium montanum Broad-leaved willowherb 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 66 Reference :0606.17

Epilobium tetragonum Square-stalked willowherb 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Galium aparine Cleavers 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Jacobaea vulgaris Common ragwort 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Matricaria discoidea Pineappleweed 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Plantago major Greater plantain 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R Near gate from Mortimer
Rd
Potentilla erecta Tormentil 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved dock 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Sonchus arvensis Perennial sow thistle 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Stachys sylvatica Hedge woundwort 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Taraxacum officinale agg. Dandelion 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R Near gate from Mortimer
Rd
Teucrium scorodonia Wood sage 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Trifolium repens White clover 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Tussilago farfara Colt's foot 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R Near gate from Mortimer
Rd
Urtica dioica Common nettle 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Agrostis sp. Bent sp. 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Cynosurus cristatus Crested dog's tail 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Dactylis glomeratus Cocksfoot 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 O
Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair grass 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 O
Festuca sp. Fescue sp. 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 O
Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 O
Holcus mollis Creeping soft grass 12/09/2017 SK2329998665 R Along south boundary
Juncus articulatus Jointed rush 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R Could be J. acutiflorus
Juncus effusus Soft rush 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 F (LD)
Lolium perenne Perennial rye grass 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R Along footpath/boundary
edge
Typha latifolia Bulrush 18/08/2017 SK2328898795 R Northwest corner near
footpath
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 67 Reference :0606.17

Athyrium filix-femina Lady fern 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R More to north of footpath
Dryopteris sp. Buckler fern sp. 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
Pteridium aquilinum Bracken 12/09/2017 SK2329998665 R Along south boundary
Sphagnum sp. Sphagnum moss 18/08/2017 SK2333398656 R Scattered within the wet
flushes. Grid ref is one area,
consider this scattered
throughout the
compartment. Likely to be
S. fimbriatum.
Leccinum scabrum Brown birch bolete 18/08/2017 SK2329998665 R
9.4 Compartment C
Scientific Name Common Name Date Grid Ref Distribution/
Abundance
Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 O
Betula pendula Silver birch 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 F
Ilex aquifolium Holly 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R
Larix sp. Larch (hybrid?) 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 R
Larix decidua European larch 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 O
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 68 Reference :0606.17
Comments
Picea glauca White spruce 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R Tentative ID - definitely a
spruce
Picea sitenchis Sitka spruce 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 O Tentative ID - definitely a
spruce
Pinus contorta Lodgepole pine 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 O
Pinus nigra Corsican pine 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 O Mostly in north of
compartment
Pinus sylvestris Scots pine 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 R
Rhododendron ponticum Common rhododendron 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 F Young plants scattered in
the ground flora
throughout this
compartment.
Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R (LA) Dense along access track
to west

Rubus ideaus Raspberry 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R
Salix caprea Goat willow 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R
Sambucus nigra Elder 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R
Sorbus aucuparia Rowan 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R
Vaccinium myrtillus Bilberry 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 O
Artemisia vulgaris Mugwort 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R
Callitriche stagnalis Common water starwort 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 R Within ponds
Digitalis purpurea Foxglove 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R
Galium aparine Cleavers 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R
Geranium robertianum Herb robert 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 R
Potamogeton sp. Pondweed sp. 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 R In ponds
Stachys sylvatica Hedge woundwort 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R
Teucrium scorodonia Wood sage 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R Access track to west
Urtica dioica Common nettle 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R (LA) Access track to west
Carex sp. Sedge sp. 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R Access track to west.
Possibly pendulous sedge
Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair grass 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R Access track to west
Glyceria fluitans Floating sweetgrass 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 R In ponds and pond edges
Juncus effusus Soft rush 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R Access track to west
Molinia caerulea Purple moor grass 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 R
Blechnum splicant Hard fern 18/08/2017 SK2318198707
Dryopteris dilitata Broad buckler fern 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 R
Dryopteris sp. Buckler fern sp. 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R
Sphagnum fimbriatum Fringed bog moss 18/08/2017 SK2318198707 R Near pond edges and in
ditch system
Hypholoma fasciculare Sulpher tuft 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R
Lycoperdon sp. Puffball sp. 12/09/2017 SK2318198707 R
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 69 Reference :0606.17

9.5 Compartment D
Scientific Name Common Name Date Grid Ref Distribution/
Abundance
Abies grandis Grand fir 12/09/2017 SK2307298752 R
Comments
Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore 12/09/2017 SK2309298727 P Young sycamore in
fenced off area
Alnus glutinosa Alder 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 R In wetter sections
Betula pendula Silver birch 12/09/2017 SK2307298752 P
Betula pubescens Downy birch 12/09/2017 SK2309298727 R
Corylus avellana Hazel 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Ilex aquifolium Holly 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Larix sp. Larch (hybrid?) 12/09/2017 SK2307298752 P
Larix decidua European larch 12/09/2017 SK2307298752 P
Picea glauca White spruce 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Pinus sp. Pine sp. 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Pinus contorta Lodgepole pine 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Quercus sp. Oak sp. 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Quercus robur English oak 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Quercus rubra Red oak 12/09/2017 SK2307298752 P Varied ages, some multistemmed.
Some in line
along fence to east.
Rhododendron ponticum Common rhododendron 12/09/2017 SK2309298727 P Some dense areas in
south
Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble 12/09/2017 SK2309298727 P
Sorbus aucuparia Rowan 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Vaccinium myrtillus Bilberry 12/09/2017 SK2307298752 P
Callitriche sp. Water starwort 12/09/2017 SK2302798769 R In pond
Galium saxatile Heath bedstraw 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Geranium robertianum Herb robert 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 R
Potamogeton sp. Pondweed sp. 12/09/2017 SK2302798769 R In pond & at pond at
SK2304698809
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 70 Reference :0606.17

Teucrium scorodonia Wood sage 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Urtica dioica Common nettle 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 R
Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair grass 12/09/2017 SK2304698809 R Pond area
Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy hair grass 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Glyceria fluitans Floating sweetgrass 12/09/2017 SK2302798769 R In pond
Holcus mollis Creeping soft grass 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Juncus effusus Soft rush 12/09/2017 SK2302798769 R In pond
Typha latifolia Bulrush 12/09/2017 SK2304698809 R In pond
Blechnum splicant Hard fern 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Dryopteris sp. Buckler fern sp. 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 P
Sphagnum fimbriatum Fringed bog moss 12/09/2017 SK2306198744 R In man made ditches &
ponds
Lycoperdon pyriforme Stump puffball 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 R
Scleroderma sp. Earthball 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 R
Amanita muscari Fly agaric 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 R
Cladonia lichen sp. Cladonia sp. 12/09/2017 SK2309098826 R
9.6 Compartment E
Scientific Name Common Name Date Grid Ref Distribution/
Abundance
Abies grandis Grand fir 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 71 Reference :0606.17
Comments
Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 O (LA) Mostly along south
boundary line
Alnus glutinosa Alder 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Betula pendula Silver birch 12/09/217 SK2251399022 O
Calluna vulgaris Heather 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R Mostly with broad-leaved
trees along road edge
Fagus sylvatica Beech 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R Only one or two young
saplings
Ilex aquifolium Holly 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R

Larix sp. Larch (hybrid?) 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Larix decidua European larch 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 F
Picea sp. Spruce sp. 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Picea glauca White spruce 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R Tentative ID
Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Pinus contorta Lodgepole pine 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 O (LA) Plantation to west
Pinus sylvestris Scots pine 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 F (LA) In plantation in central
and east areas
Quercus sp. Oak sp. 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Quercus petraea Sessile oak 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Quercus rubra Red oak 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Rhododendron ponticum Common rhododendron 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 O Under conifer and at
Gilroyd Lane edge
Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Salix caprea Goat willow 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R Generally with grey
willow at reservoir edge
Salix cinerea Grey willow 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 O Almost all along scrub
edge to reservoir
Sorbus aucuparia Rowan 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Taxus baccata Yew 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Ulex europaeus Gorse 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Vaccinium myrtillus Bilberry 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 O
Angelica sylvestris Wild angelica 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Bidens tripartita Trifid bur marigold 12/09/2017 SK2248599134 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Callitriche stagnalis Common water starwort 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R Within pond and wet
ditches
Campanula rotundifolia Harebell 12/09/2017 SK2236699009 R Near gate to road -
precise grid ref.
Chamaerion angustifolium Rosebay 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 72 Reference :0606.17

Cirsium palustre Marsh thistle 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R Wet areas within
woodland and marginals
along reservoir edge
Crassula helmsii New Zealand pygmyweed 12/09/2017 SK2235199141 O (LD) Marginals along reservoir
edge. Present scattered
under other marginals.
Crocosmia x crocosmiiflora Montbretia 12/09/2017 SK2265598897 R Located behind gate off
Gilroyd Lane
Digitalis purpurea Foxglove 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Epilobium sp. Willowherb sp. 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Galium saxatile Heath bedstraw 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Hieracium sp. Hieracium sp. 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Hydrocotyle vulgaris Marsh pennywort 12/09/2017 SK2236099156 R (LA) Marginals along reservoir
edge
Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R Restricted to edges of
plantation/near waters
edge associated with
deciduous trees.
Lamiastrum galeobdolon subs.
Argentum
Variegated yellow archangel 12/09/2017 SK2279498819 R Precise grid reference. At
gate from road near
beehives.
Littorella uniflora Shoreweed 12/09/2017 SK2236099156 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Lotus pedunculatus Greater birdsfoot trefoil 12/09/2017 SK2236099156 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Lysimachia nemorum Yellow pimpernel 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R Restricted to edges of
plantation/near waters
edge associated with
deciduous trees.
Myosotis scorpioides Water forget me not 12/09/2017 SK2304698809 R In pond - precise grid ref
Origanum vulgare Wild marjoram 12/09/2017 SK2236099156 R (LA) Marginals along reservoir
edge
Oxalis acetosa Wood sorrel 12/09/2017 SK2235199109 R At edge of woodland
along reservoir edge
Persicaria amphibia Amphibious bistort 12/09/2017 SK2248599134 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 73 Reference :0606.17

Persicaria hydropiper Water pepper 12/09/2017 SK2248599134 R (LA) Marginals along reservoir
edge
Persicaria maculosa Redleg 12/09/2017 SK2248599134 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Potamogeton sp. Pondweed sp. 12/09/2017 SK2304698809 R In pond - precise grid ref
Potentilla erecta Tormentil 12/09/2017 SK22306099156 R Open edges along
reservoir edge
Ranunculus flammula Lesser spearwort 12/09/2017 SK22306099156 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup 12/09/2017 SK2236099156 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Tussilago farfara Coltsfoot 12/09/2017 SK2236099156 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Viola palustris Marsh violet 12/09/2017 SK2236099156 R (LA) Marginals along reservoir
edge
Agrostis sp. Bent grass 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Carex sp. Sedge sp. 12/09/2017 SK2236099156 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair grass 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy hair grass 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 O
Holcus mollis Creeping soft grass 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 O
Juncus bufonius Toad rush 12/09/2017 SK2236099156 R (LA) Marginals along reservoir
edge
Nardus stricta Mat-grass 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R At open edge of
plantation to east
Typha latifolia Bulrush 12/09/2017 SK2304698809 R In pond - precise grid ref
Juncus effusus Soft rush 12/09/2017 SK2304698809 R In pond - precise grid ref
Athyrium filix-femina Lady fern 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Blechnum splicant Hard fern 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Dryopteris sp. Buckler fern sp. 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 O
Dryopteris filix-mas Male fern 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R Some very large - keyed
out to check not
mountain fern - pic with
colleague for scale
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 74 Reference :0606.17

Pteridium aquilinum Bracken 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 O Mostly under mature
conifer plantations
Sphagnum fimbriatum Fringed bog moss 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R Scattered in ponds,
ditches and wet flushes
Marchantiophyta Liverworts 12/09/2017 SK2236099156 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Amanita fulva Tawny grisette 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Laccaria laccata Deceiver 12/09/2017 SK2251399022 R
Peziza sp. Cup fungus 12/09/2017 SK2236099156 R
9.7 Compartment F
Scientific Name Common Name Date Grid Ref Distribution/ Comments
Abundance
Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Alnus glutinosa Alder 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Wet ditch near south wall
& along footpath
Betula pendula Silver birch 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 R
Calluna vulgaris Heather 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 R
Corylus avellana Hazel 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Ilex aquifolium Holly 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 O Saplings and mid-sized
shrubs in understory of
plantation
Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Pinus sylvestris Scots pine 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 D Even-aged single species
mature conifer
plantation.
Quercus sp. Oak sp. 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Wet ditch near south wall
Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 O
Salix caprea Goat willow 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 R
Sambucus nigra Elder 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 R
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 75 Reference :0606.17

Sorbus aucuparia Rowan 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 R Saplings in understory of
plantation
Ulex europaeus Gorse 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 R
Vaccinium myrtillus Bilberry 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Chamaerion angustifolium Rosebay 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Cirsium palustre Marsh thistle 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Wet ditch near south wall
Digitalis purpurea Foxglove 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 R
Galeopsis tetrahit Common hemp nettle 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Hieracium sp. Hieracium sp. 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Oxalis acetosa Wood sorrel 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 R Noted along western
edge of compartment
Persicaria maculosa Redleg 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Plantago major Greater plantain 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Rumex obtusifolius Broad-leaved dock 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Urtica dioica Common nettle 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Agrostis stolonifera Creeping bent 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Along footpath edge
Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair grass 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Wet ditch near south wall
Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy hair grass 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 R
Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 R
Holcus mollis Creeping soft grass 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 R
Poa trivialis Rough meadow grass 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 R
Juncus effusus Soft rush 18/08/2017 SK2310898885 R Wet ditch near south wall
& along footpath
Dryopteris sp. Buckler fern sp. 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 F
Dryopteris dilitata Broad buckler fern 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 O
Pteridium aquilinum Bracken 18/08/2017 SK2313698937 R
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 76 Reference :0606.17

9.8 Compartment G
Scientific Name Common Name Date Grid Ref Distribution/
Abundance
Abies procera Noble fir 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R
Comments
Betula pendula Silver birch 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R Footpath edges
Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R
Ilex aquifolium Holly 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R
Larix decidua European larch 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 O (LD)
Larix kaempferi Japanese larch 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 O
Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R
Pinus nigra Corsican pine 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 F
Pinus sylvestris Scots pine 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R
Prunus laurocerasus Cherry laurel 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R At footpath edge
Quercus sp. Oak sp. 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R Footpath edges
Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R Open edges
Sambucus nigra Elder 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R Footpath edges
Chamaerion angustifolium Rosebay 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R
Digitalis purpurea Foxglove 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R
Galium saxatile Heath bedstraw 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R
Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R One or two plants near
north boundary with Cpt J
Potentilla erecta Tormentil 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R Footpath edges
Teucrium scorodonia Wood sage 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R
Agrostis capillaris Common bent 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 O
Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R
Holcus mollis Creeping soft grass 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 O
Dryopteris sp. Buckler fern sp. 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R
Dryopteris dilitata Broad buckler fern 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 77 Reference :0606.17

Pteridium aquilinum Bracken 18/08/2017 SK2264799231 R
9.9 Compartment H
Scientific Name Common Name Date Grid Ref Distribution/
Abundance
Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R
Betula pendula Silver birch 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 O
Calluna vulgaris Heather 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R
Cytisus scoparius Broom 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R
Ilex aquifolium Holly 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R (LA)
Larix decidua European larch 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R (LA)
Quercus sp. Oak 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 O
Quercus petraea Sessile oak 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 O
Quercus robur English oak 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 O
Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 F
Salix caprea Goat willow 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R (LA)
Salix cinerea Grey willow 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 O
Vaccinium myrtillis Bilberry 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R
Chamaerion angustifolium Rosebay 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R
Digitalis purpurea Foxglove 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R
Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R
Potentilla erecta Tormentil 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R
Teucrium scorodonia Wood sage 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R
Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair grass 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 O
Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy hair grass 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R
Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 O
Holcus mollis Creeping soft grass 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R
Dryopteris sp. Buckler fern 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 R (LA)
Comments
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 78 Reference :0606.17

Pteridium aquilinum Bracken 18/08/2017 SK2269599117 A
9.10 Compartment I
Scientific Name Common Name Date Grid Ref Distribution/
Abundance
Betula pendula Silver birch 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 O (LA)
Calluna vulgaris Heather 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 F
Cytisus scoparius Broom 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Empetrum nigrum Crowberry 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Quercus sp. Oak 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Quercus petraea Sessile oak 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Quercus robur English oak 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 F
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 79 Reference :0606.17
Comments
Salix caprea Goat willow 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R Along top of water's edge
Salix cinerea Grey willow 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 O Along top of water's edge
Sorbus aucuparia Rowan 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Vaccinium myrtillis Bilberry 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 F
Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Digitalis purpurea Foxglove 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Hypochaeris radicata Common cat's ear 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Jacobaea vulgaris Common ragwort 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Lathyrus pratensis Meadow vetchling 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R In north of compartment
Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Ranunculus sp. Buttercup 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Rumex acetosa Common sorrel 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Sonchus sp. Sow thistle 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Tanacetum vulgare Tansy 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Teucrium scorodonia Wood sage 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 O
Trifolium pratense Red clover 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R

Agrostis capillaris Common bent 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 O
Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair grass 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Juncus effusus Soft rush 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Lolium perenne Perennial rye grass 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Nardus stricta Mat grass 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 R
Pteridium aquilinum Bracken 18/08/2017 SK2246599558 O (LA)
9.11 Compartment J
Scientific Name Common Name Date Grid Ref Distribution/
Abundance
Calluna vulgaris Heather 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 F
Vaccinium myrtillis Bilberry 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 F
Digitalis purpurea Foxglove 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 R
Galium saxatile Heath bedstraw 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 F
Potentilla erecta Tormentil 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 F
Trifolium repens White clover 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 R
Agrostis capillaris Common bent 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 A
Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair grass 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 O
Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy hair grass 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 O
Festuca sp. Fescue sp. 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 R
Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 R
Juncus effusus Soft rush 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 O
Lolium perenne Perennial rye grass 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 R
Nardus stricta Mat grass 18/08/2017 SK2243999718 F
Comments
9.12 Compartment K
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 80 Reference :0606.17

Scientific Name Common Name Date Grid Ref Distribution/
Abundance
Aesculus hippocastanum Horse chestnut 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R
Hypericum androsaemum Tutsan 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R
Ilex aquifolium Holly 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R
Larix decidua European larch 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 F
Picea sp. Spruce sp. 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 O
Pinus contorta Lodgepole pine 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 O
Pinus sylvestris Scots pine 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 F
Comments
Prunus laurocerasus Cherry laurel 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R (LA) West edge, near
trackway.
Quercus robur English oak 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R 3 old pollard shaped oaks
at SK2227999805 in a line
Rhododendron ponticum Rhododendron 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R (LA) West edge, near
trackway.
Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 O
Ulmus glabra Wych elm 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R
Chamaerion angustifolium Rosebay 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R
Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R
Cirsium vulgare Spear thistle 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R
Digitalis purpurea Foxglove 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 O
Epilobium sp. Willowherb sp. 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R
Galium saxatile Heath bedstraw 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 O At open edge to east
Hyacinthoides non-scripta Bluebell 12/09/2017 SK2227999805 R Under old oak trees
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R
Stellaria graminea Lesser stitchwort 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R
Stellaria media Chickweed 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R
Teucrium scorodonia Wood sage 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 O
Urtica dioica Common nettle 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R
Agrostis capillaris Common bent 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 F
Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy hair grass 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 F At open edge to east
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 81 Reference :0606.17

Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 R
Holcus mollis Creeping soft grass 12/09/2017 SK2233299835 F
9.13 Compartment L
Scientific Name Common Name Date Grid Ref Distribution/ Comments
Abundance
Betula pendula Silver birch 12/09/217 SK2211499660 O Quarry area and around
edges of woodland
Calluna vulgaris Heather 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 F Particularly in quarry area
Crataegus monogyna Hawthorn 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R
Cytisus scoparius Broom 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R
Picea sitenchis Sitka spruce 18/08/2017 SK2211499660 R
Pinus sp. Pine sp. 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 O
Pinus sylvestris Scots pine 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 F
Quercus sp. Oak sp. 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R
Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 F
Salix cinerea Grey willow 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R
Sorbus aucuparia Rowan 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R
Vaccinium myrtillus Bilberry 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 O Particularly in quarry area
Chamaerion angustifolium Rosebay 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R
Cirsium vulgare Spear thistle 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R
Crassula helmsii New Zealand pygmyweed 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R Marginals along reservoir
edge. Present scattered
under other marginals.
Galium saxatile Heath bedstraw 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 O
Hydrocotyle vulgaris Marsh pennywort 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Persicaria amphibia Amphibious bistort 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 82 Reference :0606.17

Persicaria maculosa Redleg 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Potentilla erecta Tormentil 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R
Rumex acetosa Common sorrel 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R
Urtica dioica Common nettle 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 O
Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair grass 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R
Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy hair grass 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 O
Juncus effusus Soft rush 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R
Pteridium aquilinum Bracken 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 O
Boletus sp. Bolete sp. 12/09/2017 SK2211499660 R
9.14 Compartment M
Scientific Name Common Name Date Grid Ref Distribution/
Abundance
Alnus glutinosa Alder 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Betula pendula Silver birch 12/09/217 SK2206599414 R
Calluna vulgaris Heather 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Ilex aquifolium Holly 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Pinus sp. Pine sp. 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 O
Pinus sylvestris Scots pine 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 F
Quercus sp. Oak sp. 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Rhododendron ponticum Common rhododendron 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 O
Rubus fruticosus agg. Bramble 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 F
Salix caprea Goat willow 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Salix cinerea Grey willow 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 O
Sorbus aucuparia Rowan 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 O
Vaccinium myrtillus Bilberry 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 83 Reference :0606.17
Comments
Bidens tripartita Trifid bur marigold 12/09/2017 SK2215099418 R Marginals along reservoir
edge

Chamaerion angustifolium Rosebay 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Cirsium arvense Creeping thistle 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Crassula helmsii New Zealand pygmyweed 12/09/2017 SK2215099418 R (LD) Marginals along reservoir
edge
Digitalis purpurea Foxglove 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Epilobium montanum Broad-leaved willowherb 12/09/2017 SK2215099418 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Galium saxatile Heath bedstraw 12/09/2017 SK2205299221 R Mosaic heath/acid
grassland area
Hydrocotyle vulgaris Marsh pennywort 12/09/2017 SK2215099418 R (LA) Marginals along reservoir
edge
Hypochaeris radicata Common cat's ear 12/09/2017 SK2205299221 R Mosaic heath/acid
grassland area
Lotus pedunculatus Greater birdsfoot trefoil 12/09/2017 SK2215099418 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Lycopus europaeus Gypsywort 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Origanum vulgare Wild marjoram 12/09/2017 SK2215099418 R (LA) Marginals along reservoir
edge
Oxalis acetosa Wood sorrel 12/09/2017 SK2212199300 R (LA)
Persicaria amphibia Amphibious bistort 12/09/2017 SK2215099418 R (LA) Marginals along reservoir
edge
Persicaria hydropiper Water pepper 12/09/2017 SK2215099418 R (LA) Marginals along reservoir
edge
Persicaria maculosa Redleg 12/09/2017 SK2215099418 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Potentilla erecta Tormentil 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Rumex acetosa Common sorrel 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Sagina procumbens Pearlwort 12/09/2017 SK2215099418 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Stellaria holostea Greater stitchwort 12/09/2017 SK2200299561 R Near woodland edge to
north
Urtica dioica Common nettle 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Veronica scutellata Marsh speedwell 12/09/2017 SK2212299503 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 84 Reference :0606.17

Viola palustris Marsh violet 12/09/2017 SK2212299503 R Marginals along reservoir
edge
Agrostis capillaris Common bent grass 12/09/2017 SK2205299221 R Mosaic heath/acid
grassland area
Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy hair grass 12/09/2017 SK2205299221 O Mosaic heath/acid
grassland area
Juncus bufonius Toad rush 12/09/2017 SK2215099418 R (LA) Marginals along reservoir
edge
Luzula sp. Wood rush sp. 12/09/2017 SK2205299221 R Mosaic heath/acid
grassland area
Nardus stricta Mat-grass 12/09/2017 SK2205299221 R Mosaic heath/acid
grassland area
Juncus effusus Soft rush 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
Sphagnum fimbriatum Fringed bog moss 12/09/2017 SK2215099418 R In outflows from
woodland
Pteridium aquilinum Bracken 12/09/2017 SK2206599414 R
9.15 Compartment N
Scientific Name Common Name Date Grid Ref Distribution/
Abundance
Calluna vulgaris Heather 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 O
Sorbus aucuparia Rowan 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 R
Vaccinium myrtillus Bilberry 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 O
Cirsium palustre Marsh thistle 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 R
Galeopsis tetrahit Common hemp nettle 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 R
Galium saxatile Heath bedstraw 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 F
Heracleum sphondylium Hogweed 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 R
Jacobaea vulgaris Common ragwort 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 R
Lotus pedunculatus Greater birdsfoot trefoil 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 R
Myosotis sp. Forget me not sp. 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 R
Rumex acetosa Common sorrel 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 O
Agrostis sp. Bent grass 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 F
Comments
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 85 Reference :0606.17

Deschampsia cespitosa Tufted hair grass 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 F
Deschampsia flexuosa Wavy hair grass 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 F
Molinia caerulea Purple moor grass 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 F
Nardus stricta Mat-grass 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 O
Juncus effusus Soft rush 12/09/2017 SK2191599453 O
9.16 Bird Survey
Scientific name Common name Date Comments
Accipiter nisus Sparrowhawk 12/09/2017 Large nest located in Compartment E in conifers. Numerous carcasses of various bird
species found around the site, indicating Sparrowhawk present.
Aegithalos caudatus Long tailed tit 12/09/2017 On site generally
Anas penelope Wigeon 12/09/2017 On reservoir
Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 12/09/2017 On reservoir
Anthus pratensis Meadow pipit 12/09/2017 On site generally
Aythya fuligula Tufted duck 12/09/2017 On reservoir
Buteo buteo Common buzzard 12/09/2017 Flying over and around the western end of the reservoir
Carduelis carduelis Goldfinch 12/09/2017 On site generally
Carduelis spinus Siskin 12/09/2017 On site generally
Certhia familiaris Treecreeper 12/09/2017 On site generally
Chroicocephalus ridibundus Black headed gull 12/09/2017 On reservoir
Columba palumbus Woodpigeon 12/09/2017 On site generally
Corvus corone Carrion crow 12/09/2017 On site generally
Cyanistes caeruleus Blue tit 12/09/2017 On site generally
Dendrocopos major Great spotted woodpecker 12/09/2017 On site generally
Erithacus rubecula Robin 12/09/2017 On site generally
Falco subbuteo Hobby 12/09/2017 Flying north to south over woodland at eastern end of site, before flying south over
moorland
Falco tinnunculus Kestrel 12/09/2017 Hunting for food/prey on the moor and also in a grass field located at the eastern end of
the site
Garrulus glandarius Jay 12/09/2017 On site generally
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 86 Reference :0606.17

Hirundo rustica Swallow 12/09/2017 On site generally
Lagopus lagopus Red grouse 12/09/2017 On site generally
Larus argentatus Herring gull 12/09/2017 On reservoir
Larus fuscus Lesser black backed gull 12/09/2017 On reservoir
Motacilla cinerea Grey wagtail 12/09/2017 On site generally
Parus major Great tit 12/09/2017 On site generally
Periparus ater Coal tit 12/09/2017 On site generally
Phasianus colchicus Pheasant 12/09/2017 On site generally
Phylloscopus collybita Chiffchaff 12/09/2017 On site generally
Prunella modularis Dunnock 12/09/2017 On site generally
Pyrrhula pyrrhula Bullfinch 12/09/2017 On site generally
Regulus regulus Goldcrest 12/09/2017 On site generally
Sylvia atricapilla Blackcap 18/08/2017 Compartment H
Tachybaptus ruficollis Little grebe 12/09/2017 On reservoir
Troglodytes troglodytes Wren 12/09/2017 On site generally
Turdus merula Blackbird 12/09/2017 On site generally
Turdus philomelos Song thrush 12/09/2017 On site generally
Turdus viscivorus Mistle thrush 12/09/2017 On site generally
Company : Wildscapes Publication Date : 28/11/2017
Author : Julie Riley Version: 1
Page No.: 87 Reference :0606.17

10 Appendix C - References
Johnson, Owen and David More, 2004. Tree guide. London, Collins.
JNCC, 2010. The handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey, a technique for environmental audit. [Online]
Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/PDF/pub10_handbookforphase1habitatsurvey.pdf
Rose, Francis and Clare O’Reilly, 2006. The wild flower key: how to identify wild flowers, trees and shrubs in
Britain and Ireland. Rev ed. London, Penguin.
Suffolk Wildlife Trust, nd. Controlling New Zealand pygmyweed (Crassula hemsii).Ipswich, Suffolk Wildlife
Trust. [Available as a pdf document online

WETLAND ECOLOGY · BOTANICAL SURVEY· PROTECTED SPECIES
Dr Phil Eades
Consultant Ecologist
Member CIEEM
Agden Bog Nature Reserve
Vegetation Survey
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
9 February 2018
Submitted to:
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Wildscapes Ltd
Victoria Hall
37 Stafford Road
SHEFFIELD S2 2SF
Prepared by:
Dr Philip Eades
Member CIEEM

Agden Bog Nature Reserve
Vegetation Survey
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Scope of work:
Client:
Vegetation survey at Agden Bog Nature Reserve, Sheffield.
Wildscapes Ltd
Version: 1
Date of issue: 9 February 2018
Author:
Philip Eades, BSc, PhD, Member CIEEM
Consultant Ecologist
Email:
drphileades@gmail.com
Tel.: 0114 2666886
Mobile: 07791 428242
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist
i

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Agden Bog Nature Reserve
Vegetation Survey
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
2.0 SURVEY METHODS ........................................................................... 1
3.0 BASELINE SURVEY RESULTS .......................................................... 2
3.1 Site Description and Physical Features ........................... 2
3.2 Vegetation Descriptions .................................................... 2
3.3 Hydrochemistry .................................................................. 5
3.4 Plant Species of Local Distinctiveness ............................ 6
3.5 Current Site Management .................................................. 6
4.0 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 7
4.1 Bog Vegetation................................................................... 7
4.2 Base-rich Fen ..................................................................... 7
4.3 Species-rich Fen-meadow ................................................. 7
4.4 Wet Heath ........................................................................... 8
4.5 Scarce Plant Species ......................................................... 8
4.6 Threats and Opportunities ................................................ 8
5.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 9
6.0 MONITORING PROPOSALS .............................................................. 9
7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................. 11
8.0 ANNEXES ......................................................................................... 12
8.1 Annex 1. Figures .............................................................. 12
8.2 Annex 2. Survey Data....................................................... 19
8.3 Annex 3. Agden Bog Species List .................................. 24
8.4 Annex 4. MATCH data ...................................................... 25
FIGURES
TABLES
Figure 1 Location map 13
Figure 2 NVC vegetation map 14
Figure 3 pH & electrical conductivity 15
Figure 4 Features of interest 16
Figure 5 Management suggestions 17
Figure 6 Proposed monitoring locations 18
Table 1. Locally distinctive plant species recorded at Agden Bog
Nature Reserve. ........................................................................ 6
Table 2. Proposed monitoring points and actions. .............................. 10
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist
ii

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
1.0 Introduction
Agden Bog Nature Reserve is situated on the western edge of the Sheffield Area, in the
moorland fringe of the Peak District, in South Yorkshire (OS grid ref: SK 252 931) (Figure 1).
It lies within a side-valley of Bradfield Dale, immediately upstream of Agden Reservoir, which
flows into the River Loxley, and joins the River Don about 7 km downstream of Agden.
The reserve holds a quite large expanse of species-rich wetland, which is an unusual feature in
Sheffield and the Peak District, and it supports a wide range of wetland plants, some of which
are now quite scarce in the area. It also provides habitat for a number of wild animals
including brown hare, roe deer, frogs and toads, common lizards, invertebrates such as the
golden-ringed dragonfly, and birds such as siskin and spotted flycatcher.
Agden Bog Nature Reserve has recently been taken into management by Sheffield Wildlife
Trust, which is currently developing a management plan. However, the vegetation of Agden
Bog has not been surveyed in detail for at least 25 years, and consequently a baseline survey
was commissioned, in order to inform possibilities for management and monitoring.
2.0 Survey Methods
A walkover of the site was undertaken first, in order to roughly map the different vegetation
types as they appeared in the field, and to target note particular features. This was followed by
more detailed quadrat sampling, following standard procedure. Visually uniform stands of
vegetation were surveyed, and at least one representative sample was recorded in each
vegetation type with Domin 1 cover values for all plant species present, using suitable sized
quadrats. Coordinates of all samples and target note locations were recorded using a handheld
global positioning device (GPS), and representative digital photographs were taken. Spot
measurements of pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were made using a handheld meter
wherever there was 'free' water.
Additional information was gathered at selected sample locations, to facilitate future
vegetation monitoring of the wetland areas: sward mean height, both including and excluding
tall rushes; herb/grass ratio (where ‘herbs’ includes ferns, sedges and rushes); and sward
density, using a standard ‘drop disc’.
Sample data were analysed to identify the National Vegetation Classification (NVC)
communities present (see Rodwell, 1991, et seq.). Data were initially classified using MATCH
(Malloch, 1992) (results presented in Annex 3). The resulting coefficients of ‘fit’ with various
NVC plant communities were examined in the light of the written community descriptions
provided in the published accounts (Rodwell, 1991, et seq.; Wheeler, Shaw & Tanner, 2009),
with the aim of assessing which NVC type was considered to be the most likely. It should be
noted that not all stands formed a good fit with identified NVC units, and the chosen plant
community was not always that given the highest MATCH coefficient. Where unusual
vegetation types were encountered that could not be easily assigned to a single NVC
community, these have either been described as intermediate between two or more types, or
have been compared with vegetation types described by other workers as falling beyond the
current scope of the published NVC accounts (see JNCC, 2011).
The site was surveyed on 28 August and 7 September by Phil Eades, both warm, dry days.
Nomenclature follows Stace (2010) for higher plants, and Smith (2004) for bryophytes.
1 Domin cover values: 1:

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
3.0 Baseline Survey Results
An overview of Agden Bog and its surroundings is provided below, followed by detailed
descriptions of different vegetation types, the NVC plant communities that have been
identified, and a list of particularly notable plant species that have been found at the site.
Notes have also been made of physical features at the site, such as walls, fences and culverts,
and ongoing site management. Figures showing vegetation types and features of importance
are provided in Annex 1. Vegetation survey quadrat data are provided as a spreadsheet
(‘Agden Bog survey data 09-02-2018’), and are reproduced in Annex 2. A list of all plant
species recorded at Agden Bog in 2017 is provided in Annex 3. MATCH analysis outputs are
provided in Annex 4. Digital photos are provided on a separate dvd.
3.1 Site Description and Physical Features
Agden Bog Nature Reserve occupies a small, shallow side valley of Agden Dike, one of the
headwater streams of Agden Reservoir. The reserve is surrounded by dry scrubby, bracken
and heather-covered slopes to the east and north, on Agden Side; recently felled conifer
plantations to the south-east; and deciduous woodland to the west. Agden Reservoir and
conifer woodlands lie to the south and south-east (Figure 1).
The Nature Reserve itself incorporates dry valley slopes on its western side and part of its
eastern edge. These areas support woodland of silver birch with frequent sessile oak and
rowan, and occasional hawthorn, holly and western gorse, over bracken, bilberry and bramble,
with some more open areas dominated by bracken. The upper end of the reserve holds a small
area of bog in a small basin with up to 2 metres of peat, which supports abundant Sphagnum
bog-mosses and bog asphodel. South of this, the valley floor has a small stream flowing
southwards along it, fed by soakways from several springs and seepages (some arising outside
the site boundary), and most of the valley floor and lower, eastern valley sides are flushed by
water from these seepages. A prominent spring is situated part way up the small valley, on the
valley floor, and is marked by a treacherously quaking raft of vegetation over almost a metre
of fluid peat.
The lower section of the reserve supports a mixture of vegetation types, including herb-rich
fen-meadow, species-poor rush pasture, wet heath, Molinia mire, and most notably some
patches and strips of base-rich fen vegetation associated predominantly with the stream and
small seepage areas. Small patches of stunted bracken are frequent, and at the southern end of
the site there are small patches of wet woodland.
Two powerline way-leaves partially cross the site, roughly following the north-western and
north-eastern boundaries, and there are signs of regular scrub clearance beneath these. A
recently repaired drystone wall forms much of the north-eastern site boundary, and separates
the upper basin mire from the lower flushed wetland. The rest of the site is bounded by
recently repaired stock-proof fencing. Near the southern end of the site the stream has been
culverted beneath the adjacent track, flowing downslope from there to reach Agden Dike. A
small ditch runs along the inside of the southern site boundary; one section feeding straight
into the stream at the culvert, another section further to the south-east collects water from
soakways that flush the valley floor, exiting the site via a second culvert beneath the track.
3.2 Vegetation Descriptions
Vegetation descriptions are provided below, and illustrated in Figure 2.
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 2

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
3.2.1 Woodland
W4 Betula pubescens – Molinia caerulea woodland (Q23)
W16 Quercus spp. – Betula spp. – Deschampsia flexuosa woodland (Q1, Q2, Q3, & Q13)
Much of the reserve is covered by dry birch and oak woodland that has been assigned to W16
woodland, and could possibly be classed as the Upland Oak Woodland Priority Habitat Type
(PHT). Silver birch (Betula pendula) is the canopy dominant, but there is frequent sessile oak
(Quercus petraea, and possibly the hybrid with Quercus robur), with a sparse understorey of holly
(Ilex aquifolium), rowan (Sorbus aucuparia), and rarely hawthorn (Cretaegus monogyna) and western
gorse (Ulex gallii). There are frequent gaps in the canopy, particularly beneath the powerlines,
and here bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) is often dominant. Beneath the woodland canopy the
field layer is typically a mixture of bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) and wavy hair-grass
(Deschampsia flexuosa), with frequent heath bedstraw (Galium saxatile), and a scattering of other
plants, including the grasses common bent (Agrostis capillaris), creeping soft-grass (Holcus mollis)
and Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus). Bramble (Rubus fruticosus agg.) is locally frequent.
Bryophytes include Brachythecium rutabulum, Hypnum jutlandicum, Kindbergia praelonga, and
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus.
Damper patches support scattered purple moor-grass (Molinia caerulea), and in a few places
these grade into much wetter ground on peaty soils, dominated by downy birch (Betula
pubescens) and purple moor-grass, with some Sphagnum bog-mosses. These areas have been
assigned to W4 wet woodland, and may be considered to be an example of the Wet
Woodland PHT.
3.2.2 Minerotrophic Bog
M21b Narthecium ossifragum – Sphagnum papillosum valley mire, Vaccinium oxycoccos – Sphagnum
recurvum sub-community (Q8-Q12)
The northern part of the valley floor comprises a small narrow basin that has become infilled
with peat up to 2 m depth (Eades, 1992), and supports minerotrophic bog vegetation (i.e.
irrigated by rainfall and runoff from the valley slopes, rather than just being rain-fed). The bog
vegetation here is dominated by a carpet of Sphagnum bog-mosses, mixed with abundant bog
asphodel (Narthecium ossifragum), which produces a carpet of yellow flowers. Of the bogmosses,
Sphagnum fallax is the most abundant, but there are frequent patches of Sphagnum
capillifolium, Sphagnum denticulatum, Sphagnum palustre, Sphagnum papillosum and Sphagnum subnitens.
Ericaceous species are scattered across the surface, including heather (Calluna vulgaris),
crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), cross-leaved heath (Erica tetralix), and cranberry (Vaccinium
oxycoccos), and a range of grasses, sedges and rushes are frequent and locally abundant: both
cotton-grasses (Eriophorum angustifolium & Eriophorum vaginatum), sharp-flowered rush (Juncus
acutiflorus), soft rush (Juncus effusus) and purple moor-grass. Other plants at low cover include
common spotted orchid (Dactylorhiza fuchsii) and heath spotted orchid (Dactylorhiza maculata),
round-leaved sundew (Drosera rotundifolia), mat-grass (Nardus stricta) and tormentil (Potentilla
erecta).
Soft rush is especially dense at the northern end, where the bog grades out into damp mineral
ground, and sharp-flowered rush is particularly abundant along the western side. Birch and
bramble scrub are also present along the margins.
This vegetation type has been assigned to M21b valley mire, although some parts also have
strong affinity to the M18 raised bog community (Q10) and to the M2 bog pool community
(Q9 and Q10).
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 3

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
3.2.3 Base-rich Fen
Affinity to M10 Carex dioica – Pinguicula vulgaris mire (Q4-Q7)
Three locations within the lower part of the site were identified as supporting vegetation that
can best be described as base-rich fen. These comprised a narrow strip alongside the stream
toward the southern end of the site, a broad seepage area further up the valley close to the
eastern edge of the stream, and a tiny patch occupying what appeared to be a small seepage
immediately below the wall close to the southern end of the bog area.
Broadly speaking, all of these patches were characterised by generally open and low-growing
vegetation rich in small sedges, small rushes, and base-loving bryophytes (‘brown mosses’),
though the latter were more-or-less absent from the uppermost patch (Q7). Sedges and small
rushes consisted of common yellow sedge (Carex demissa), star sedge (Carex echinata), glaucous
sedge (Carex flacca), common sedge (Carex nigra), carnation sedge (Carex panicea), flea sedge
(Carex pulicaris), jointed rush (Juncus articulatus) and bulbous rush (Juncus bulbosus). Bryophytes
comprised Aneura pinguis, Bryum pseudotriquetrum, Calliergonella cuspidata, Campylium stellatum,
Ctenidium molluscum, Palustriella commutata, Pellia endiviifolia and Scorpidium cossonnii, although these
were neither abundant nor present at all locations. A range of other plants were also present,
in a matrix of taller sharp-flowered rush, most notably bog pimpernel (Anagallis tenella),
sundew, quaking grass (Briza media) and devil’s-bit scabious (Succisa pratensis), but also purple
moor-grass and tormentil, while water horsetail (Equisetum vulgaris), marsh pennywort
(Hydrocotyle vulgaris), bog pondweed (Potamogeton polygonifolius) were present on wetter ground.
Common butterwort (Pinguicula vulgaris) was not found during the present survey, but it has
been recorded from the site in the past, presumably from one or other of these locations.
This vegetation type has strong affinities with M10 mire, although the uppermost patch less so
since it lacks many of the ‘brown mosses’.
3.2.4 Species-rich Fen Meadow
Affinities to:
M22 Juncus subnodulosus – Cirsium palustre fen meadow
M23 Juncus effusus/acutiflorus – Galium palustre rush pasture
M24 Molinia caerulea – Cirsium dissectum fen meadow
M25 Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire (Q19-20)
A large section of gently sloping ground on the eastern side of the stream, in the centre of the
site, is visually dominated by a mixture of sharp-flowered rush and purple moor-grass. It
supports a wide variety of other plant species, including the grasses creeping bent (Agrostis
stolonifera), red fescue (Festuca rubra), Yorkshire fog, and smooth meadow-grass (Poa trivialis);
the rushes jointed rush and compact rush (Juncus conglomeratus); carnation sedge; and a few
bryophytes: Aulacomnium palustre, Brachythecium rivulare, Calliergonella cuspidata, Kindbergia praelonga,
Plagiomnium undulatum, and Pseudoscleropodium purum. There is also a scattering of medium to tall
flowering forbs, particularly sneezewort (Achillea ptarmica), lady’s smock (Cardamine pratensis),
marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre), marsh willowherb (Epilobium palustre), marsh pennywort, greater
birds-foot trefoil (Lotus pedunculatus), water mint (Mentha aquatica), tormentil, lesser spearwort
(Ranunculus flammula) and devil’s-bit scabious.
The vegetation is most diverse closer to the stream, and this section has mixed affinities to
M22, M23 and M24, while further upslope (to the east) it becomes less diverse, with purple
moor-grass becoming more dominant: that section has affinities to M24 and M25. Considered
together these patches appear to be a form of species-rich fen meadow vegetation that is
probably influenced by the outflow of moderately base-rich groundwater issuing from the
seepages, and are markedly more botanically diverse than adjacent areas of rush pasture, wet
heath, and Molinia mire.
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 4

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
3.2.5 Wet Heath
M15d Scirpus cespitosus – Erica tetralix wet heath, Vaccinium myrtilus sub-community (Q15, Q21)
Upslope of the species-rich fen-meadow, on the eastern slope of the site, lies a strip of wet
acidic vegetation that, while dominated by purple moor-grass, with locally abundant sharpflowered
rush, is marked out from the adjacent vegetation types by the presence of ericaceous
shrubs and Sphagnum bog-mosses. Heather, cross-leaved heath, bilberry and cowberry
(Vaccinium vitis-idaea) are frequent to locally abundant, as are Sphagnum denticulatum, Sphagnum
fimbriatum and Sphagnum palustre. Other species are occasional, including star sedge, marsh
thistle, wavy hair-grass, heath bedstraw, heath rush (Juncus squarrosus), heath wood-rush (Luzula
multiflora), mat-grass and tormentil.
This vegetation has been assigned to the bilberry sub-community of M15d wet heath.
3.2.6 Rush Pasture
M23 Juncus effusus/acutiflorus – Galium palustre rush pasture (Q14, Q16 & Q22)
Following the stream upslope from the species-rich fen-meadow area, the vegetation is a bit
less diverse and more obviously dominated by sharp-flowered rush, although it does retain
some variety, with a little marsh marigold (Caltha palustris) on wetter ground, and even some
bog pimpernel towards its upper end, possibly marking a small base-rich upwelling. There is
some purple moor-grass, and a scattering of other plants such as common sedge, marsh
thistle, hoary willowherb (Epilobium parviflorum), marsh bedstraw, marsh pennywort, greater
birds-foot trefoil, and devil’s-bit scabious.
Down-valley of the richer fen-meadow area is another patch of rush pasture, even less
botanically diverse, that extends up the eastern valley slope, following the course of a basepoor
soakway to its source at the wall boundary of the site.
Both of these stands of vegetation can be assigned to the M23 rush pasture community.
3.2.7 Molinia Mire
M25a Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire, Erica tetralix sub-community (Q17 & Q18)
Towards the lower end of the site, on the almost flat valley floor, there are two stands of
vegetation that are dominated by purple moor-grass, with locally abundant sharp-flowered
rush, and occasional cross-leaved heath and sparse Sphagnum bog-mosses. While these areas
have some affinity to the wet heath seen further upslope, they are less diverse, and appear to
have greatest affinity to M25a mire, a closely related plant community.
3.3 Hydrochemistry
Basic hydrochemical data (pH and electrical conductivity (EC)) were gathered at nine
locations around the site, wherever free water was available (Figure 3). These show a general
trend of more acidic and base-poor (low EC) water higher up the valley and higher up the
eastern slope, and higher pH and more base-rich water lower down the valley. A maximum of
pH 7.6 (and EC 250 µS cm -1 ) was measured in the stream where it flows through a strip of
base-rich fen at the southern end of the site, and similarly high pH (6.8 & 7.3) and EC (290 &
260 µS cm -1 ) were measured in the seepage and adjacent stretch of stream associated with a
large patch of base-rich fen further up the valley. The most acidic and base-poor water issued
from the bog area (pH 5.7, EC 80 µS cm -1 ), although small nearby seepage areas with bog
pimpernel, by the wall and in the upper soakway in the valley bottom, were also found to be
fairly base-rich (pH6.2 and 6.7, EC 200 and 150 µS cm -1 , respectively).
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 5

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
3.4 Plant Species of Local Distinctiveness
Several higher plants and bryophytes recorded during the survey are generally quite scarce in
the Sheffield area, and are considered to be locally distinctive. These are listed below (Table 1).
Table 1. Locally distinctive plant species recorded at Agden Bog Nature Reserve.
Common name Botanical name Notes *
Higher plants
Bog pimpernel Anagallis tenella Present in a number of flushed locations in the
reserve. Recent records (2000-2009) from this
site and from other moorland fringe sites in
this area. Generally infrequent in the Sheffield
area.
Flea sedge Carex pulicaris Present in a base-rich flush close to the stream.
Apparently last recorded from this site prior to
1999. Generally infrequent in the Sheffield
area.
Round-leaved sundew Drosera rotundifolia Found in both the upper bog area, and in a
large seepage area in the lower part of the site.
Very scarce in the Sheffield area, though locally
abundant in the Peak District.
Bristle club-rush Isolepis setacea Present on flushed ground in the south-eastern
part of the reserve. Recent records (2000-2009)
from this site. Generally infrequent in the
Sheffield area.
Common cow-wheat Melampyrum pratense Present in woodland on the southern edge of
the reserve. Recent records (2000-2009) from a
number of predominantly moorland fringe
sites in this area.
Common butterwort Pinguicula vulgaris Not seen during this survey. Last recorded
from this site in approximately 1994. Very
scarce in the Sheffield area, though still present
at Rickett’s Field, 1.5 km to the south.
Bryophytes
Aneura pinguis
Bryum pseudotriquetrum
Campylium stellatum
Ctenidium molluscum
Palustriella commutata
Pellia endiviifolia
Scorpidium cossonnii
All of these species are associated with flushed
base-rich conditions, particularly alongside the
lower reach of the stream, and they are locally
scarce in the Sheffield area.
* Distribution data from the Online Atlas of the British and Irish Flora (brc.ac.uk/plantatlas).
3.5 Current Site Management
Agden Bog Nature Reserve is managed by Sheffield Wildlife Trust, and is currently grazed by
2-3 hardy cattle during summer months only. Roe deer may also graze at the site, in small
numbers. Recent works at the site have involved installing new stock-proof fencing, and
repairing the drystone wall that crosses the site.
Scrub clearance is carried out along the way-leaves beneath the powerlines that cross part of
the site, presumably by the utility company.
On previous site visits (about 15 years ago) bracken appeared to be spreading in the upper
basin mire area. This seems to have been cleared in the interim period, and bracken is virtually
absent from the wetland in this area.
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 6

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
4.0 Discussion
Agden Bog has long been recognised as an important site in a local context, and it has been
studied in one form or another for many years. It is particularly interesting because of the
juxtaposition of acidic base-poor wetland vegetation and high pH base-rich wetland types,
which appear to have developed where the lower valley side is irrigated by seepages and
springs of varying hydrochemistry. The site is underlain by a mixture of Midgley Grit
sandstone, and mudstone, siltstone and sandstone of the Millstone Grit Group, and a fault
runs along the centre of the valley. Presumably there must be some calcareous influence from
the mudstones or siltstones, and faulting has encouraged the outflow of water from these
layers. As a consequence of this contrasting hydrochemistry, the site supports a range of
wetland plants, some of which are quite scarce in this area.
Agden Bog was sampled by Shaw and Wheeler (1991) as part of a wider study of herbaceous
base-rich fens, who noted that it would certainly deserve SSSI status. It has been used as a
location for undergraduate field study by the University of Sheffield, and the butterwort
population was apparently monitored for some time by Sorby Natural History Society,
although no data have been available from that study.
Features of particular importance are marked on Figure 4, and discussed below.
4.1 Bog Vegetation
The upper basin area is notable, both for its abundance and variety of Sphagnum bog-mosses
and the extensive carpet of bog asphodel, and for the deep and undisturbed peat (Eades,
1992) that provides a valuable palaeo-ecological resource. Bogs, and the peat that they hold,
are also important as a carbon store.
It is not clear how this type of bog fits into the Priority Habitat system, being neither raised
bog nor blanket bog. However, it is clearly an important habitat and vegetation type, and
should be recognised as such.
4.2 Base-rich Fen
The base-rich seepage areas support vegetation with an affinity to the M10 mire community,
which, whilst quite widespread in the northern and western uplands of the UK, is very
uncommon in the Peak District, and is present at only one or two other sites in the Sheffield
area (Rickett’s Field, and possibly Corker Walls). This kind of vegetation is an example of the
Lowland Fen PHT, and more importantly, is a form of Alkaline Fen, an EU Habitats
Directive ‘Annex 1’ habitat.
A quadrat sample within one of the base-rich mire areas that was recorded by Wheeler &
Shaw in about 1989, supported a similar range of plant species to that recorded during the
present survey, although notably common butterwort (Pinguicula vulgaris), which was found at
that time, was not recorded in 2017.
4.3 Species-rich Fen-meadow
Although the species-rich fen-meadow vegetation sampled here does not correspond clearly
to any of the NVC community types, similar vegetation has been sampled in recent years at a
range of sites in Shropshire (Eades, Meade & Shaw, 2011; Eades, Tratt & Shaw, 2013),
Staffordshire (Eades, Tratt & Shaw, 2014), and North Yorkshire (Tratt & Eades, 2015). Those
authors suggested that this type of wetland vegetation was little sampled during the
preparation of the National Vegetation Classification and is correspondingly not well
represented in the published accounts. Other examples of vegetation of this type have been
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 7

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
widely recorded by other workers since the NVC accounts were published, in southern
Scotland, northern England, and Wales, and it has been suggested that these should be
incorporated into a new sub-community of M25 or M24 (JNCC, 2011).
The close floristic relationships between M24 and other forms of species-rich fen-meadow
(e.g. M22) and alkaline fen vegetation (M10 and M13) are discussed in greater detail in
Wheeler, Shaw & Tanner (2009).
This kind of vegetation is notable because species-rich fen-meadow vegetation is not very
widespread in the UK, and is generally vulnerable to drainage and agricultural ‘improvement’
of pastures and meadows. It sits within the Purple Moor-Grass & Rush Pasture PHT, and
more importantly is considered to be an example of the EU Habitats Directive ‘Annex 1’
habitat ‘Molinia Meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae)’.
4.4 Wet Heath
Agden Bog supports a strip of M15 wet heath vegetation, close to the upper edge of the
seepage line that runs more-or-less along the eastern boundary. Rodwell (1991) describes M15
wet heath vegetation as generally a western and northern community, often representing a
seral intermediate between dry heath and blanket mire, or marking poorly-drained sections of
undulating areas of dry heath and acid grassland, and it includes vegetation that is transitional
to acidic fens. In the Peak District wet heath is generally found on thin peaty ground adjacent
to blanket bog, and examples such as this on lower ground in the moorland fringe are not very
common.
Wet heath is both a Priority Habitat Type, and an Annex 1 habitat: ‘Northern Atlantic wet
heaths with Erica tetralix’.
4.5 Scarce Plant Species
Agden Bog is also important for a number of locally scarce plant species (see Table 1 and
Figure 4). Many of these are associated with the base-rich seepages and adjacent flushed
ground, including butterwort, which has not been seen at the site for some years. Also
important are the abundant bog asphodel, Sphagnum bog-mosses, cranberry and sundew that
are found on the upper bog area, and a patch of common cow-wheat in an area of dry
woodland close to the main gate.
4.6 Threats and Opportunities
There are a number of small patches of stunted bracken in some of the wetland areas. Whilst
these may be stable in size and density, bracken can be quite invasive, and they would benefit
from being monitored.
Young birch and bramble scrub are present around the margins of the upper bog basin. The
extent of these should be monitored to ensure that they are not spreading into the main area
of bog vegetation.
Cattle grazing in recent years has had a marked effect upon the lower part of the site. The
cattle appear to favour the less wet areas, including the sloping Molinia-dominated bank: this
area used to be very difficult to walk through, so grazing has clearly had a good effect there.
However, the cattle seem less keen on grazing the rush-dominated areas. Where rushes grow
very densely and become ‘lodged’, the dense litter layer tends to smother smaller plants,
reducing botanical diversity. It would be worth trying to encourage cattle grazing into these
areas in order to open up the vegetation and increase its diversity. Another benefit of
encouraging the cattle to spend more time in these areas is that localised poaching within the
base-rich seepages and flushed areas might encourage the return of butterwort, as it favours
low-growing vegetation and small patches of bare, wet peat.
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 8

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
5.0 Management Recommendations
Management suggestions are illustrated in Figure 5.
Grazing the site with hardy cattle in summer months at the current intensity should be
continued, and efforts should be made to encourage cattle grazing into the rush-dominated
areas, in order to open up the vegetation and increase its diversity. One approach could be to
top the rushes with a brush-cutter in early June, removing the cut material.
The bog basin at the northern end of the site appears not to be grazed. In the absence of
grazing it will probably be necessary to carry out regular scrub control of birch and bramble
on the margins.
Depending upon the results of future vegetation monitoring, it may be necessary to control
bracken if it is found to be expanding its cover, or increasing in density, in the wetland parts
of the site. Because of the current limited extent of bracken in these areas, it would hopefully
be possible to control it by hand without the use of herbicide.
6.0 Monitoring Proposals
The following actions should be undertaken at a suitable frequency (ideally no less than every
three to five years):
Monitor the presence and abundance of locally important species such as bog
pimpernel, bristle club-rush, flea sedge and 'brown mosses', along the stream and in
seepage areas and on flushed ground.
Monitor the presence and abundance of common cow-wheat (Melampyrum pratense) in
the dry woodland at the southern edge of the reserve.
Regularly search for butterwort (Pinguicula vulgaris) (which has not been recorded at the
site since about 1994) in the base-rich seepage areas, and the flushed ground alongside
the lower reach of the stream.
Monitor the extent and vigour of bracken stands within the wetland areas, and the
extent of birch scrub and bramble around the margins of the bog.
If rush-cutting is undertaken, monitor changes to the vegetation structure and
diversity.
A basic monitoring programme could simply aim to undertake the above actions as suggested.
A more detailed programme could incorporate these in a more objective procedure, which
would involve revisiting specified locations (e.g. a sub-set of the sample points of this survey)
as part of a ‘W-walk’, recording the presence of all plant species (or a limited set of ‘indicator’
species) using the DAFOR 2 scale. Additional information would also help to quantify the
effects of management actions: sward height, sward density, herb-grass ratio. Such data were
gathered as part of the current survey to provide a base-line, should this approach be taken
(provided as a separate spreadsheet: ‘Agden Mon template 09-02-2018’). Revisiting the
monitoring points suggested in Table 2 and Figure 6, and taking representative photos, should
provide sufficient information to assess the effect of ongoing management and other factors
affecting the site.
2 D = dominant; A = abundant; F = frequent; O = occasional; R = rare; L = locally
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 9

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Table 2. Proposed monitoring points and actions.
(Refer to Figure 6)
Monitoring Feature Action Easting Northing
point
1 Common cow-wheat Presence 425190 393060
2 Base-rich fen by stream Species-list, sward height & density 425196 393075
3 Rush pasture Species-list, sward height & density 425218 393068
Bracken, 2 patches Check extent & density between 3 & 4
4 Species-rich fen-meadow Species-list, sward height & density 425199 393103
5 Wet heath Species-list, sward height & density 425235 393095
Bracken Check extent & density between 5 & 6
6 Base-rich fen Species-list, sward height & density 425211 393125
7 Species-rich rush pasture Species-list, sward height & density 425215 393137
8 Bog pimpernel Presence 425210 393159
9 Tiny base-rich fen Species-list, sward height & density 425222 393169
10 Bog Species-list, sward height & density 425218 393224
11 Bog Species-list, sward height & density 425208 393227
12 Bog Species-list, sward height & density 425219 393244
Scrub on bog margins Check size and encroachment
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 10

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
7.0 References
Eades, P.A. (1992). Regional vegetation changes and developmental history of Agden Bog. Unpublished
undergraduate thesis, University of Sheffield.
Eades, P., Meade, R. & Shaw, S. (2011). Upland flushes of Shropshire: Vegetation & Hydro-Ecology.
Wetland Site Accounts for Caer Caradoc Hill and Hope Bowdler Hill. Unpublished report to
Natural England and Shropshire Council.
Eades, P.A., Tratt, R. & Shaw, S.C. (2013). Habitats Directive Annex 1 fen survey: Devon, Somerset
and Shropshire. Unpublished report to Natural England.
Eades, P.A., Tratt, R. & Shaw, S.C. (2014). An Ecohydrological characterisation of wetland areas at
Sutton Park SSSI. Unpublished report to Natural England.
JNCC (2011). A compilation of proposed additions and revisions to vegetation types in the National
Vegetation Classification. JNCC, Peterborough.
Malloch, A.J.C. (1992). MATCH – a computer programme to aid the assignment of vegetation data to the
communities and sub-communities of the National Vegetation Classification. University of
Lancaster, Lancaster.
Rodwell, J. (ed.) (1991a). British Plant Communities, Volume 1. Woodland & scrub. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell, J. (ed.) (1991b). British Plant Communities, Volume 2. Mires & heaths. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell, J.S., Dring, J.C., Averis, A.B.G., Proctor, M.C.F., Malloch, A.J.C., Schaminée, J.N.J.,
& Dargie T.C.D. (2000). Review of coverage of the National Vegetation Classification. JNCC
Report No. 302. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Shaw, S.C. & Wheeler, B.D. (1991). A Review of Habitat Conditions and Management Characteristics
of Herbaceous Fen Vegetation-types in Lowland Britain. Report to Nature Conservancy
Council.
Smith, A.J.E. (2004). The Moss Flora of Britain and Ireland. 2nd Ed., Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge.
Stace, C. (2010). New flora of the British Isles (3 rd edition). Cambridge University Press.
Tratt, R. & Eades, P.A. (2015). 2014 fen surveys of the North York Moors. Unpublished report to
Natural England.
Wetland Site Accounts for Caer Caradoc Hill and Hope Bowdler Hill. Unpublished report to Natural
England and Shropshire Council.
Wheeler B.D., Shaw S.C. & Tanner K. (2009). A wetland framework for impact assessment at
statutory sites in England and Wales. Environment Agency, Bristol.
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 11

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
8.0 Annexes
8.1 Annex 1. Figures
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 12

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 13

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 14

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 15

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 16

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 17

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 18

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
8.2 Annex 2. Survey Data
Woodlands
Quadrat 1 2 3 13 23
Likely NVC comm W16 W16 W16 W16 W4
Date 28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
Surveyor's name P EADES P EADES P EADES P EADES P EADES
pH
conductivity (micro-S / cm)
Photo ID AB1 AB2 AB3 AB22
Easting 425260 425242 425182 425230 425252
Northing 393042 393030 393151 393138 393072
Current species name Domin Domin Domin Domin Domin
Agrostis capillaris 3
Agrostis stolonifera 4
Betula pendula 9 9 8 8
Brachythecium rivulare 3
Brachythecium rutabulum 3
Cirsium palustre 3
Crataegus monogyna 1 1
Deschampsia flexuosa 5 5 6 5
Digitalis purpurea 2
Epilobium obscurum 3
Galium saxatile 3 2 3
Holcus lanatus 3
Holcus mollis 7 4
Hypnum jutlandicum 4
Ilex aquifolium 2 3
Juncus effusus 4
Kindbergia praelonga 3 3 5
Molinia caerulea 4 3 4
Polytrichum commune 4
Pteridium aquilinum 7 3 5 5
Quercus petraea 3 3 2 3
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 2 3
Rubus fruticosus agg. 4 3 3 3
Sorbus aucuparia 3 3 3 1
Sphagnum fallax 3
Sphagnum fimbriatum 2
Sphagnum palustre 6
Stellaria alsine 3
Ulex gallii 1
Vaccinium myrtillus 6 5 1
Viola palustris 3
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 19

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Base-rich Fen
Quadrat 4 5 6 7
Likely NVC comm M10 M10 M10 aff M10
Date 28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
Surveyor's name P EADES P EADES P EADES P EADES
pH 7.6 6.8 6.2
conductivity (micro-S / cm) 250 290 200
Photo ID AB4, AB5 AB6 AB7
Easting 425196 425202 425211 425222
Northing 393075 393061 393125 393169
Current species name Domin Domin Domin Domin
Anagallis tenella 4 3
Aneura pinguis 3 2 2
Briza media 2 1
Bryum pseudotriquetrum 3 3 3
Calliergonella cuspidata 4 4 3 3
Campylium stellatum 4 4 4
Carex demissa 1
Carex echinata 2
Carex flacca 2
Carex nigra 3 3 2
Carex panicea 4 4 1
Carex pulicaris 2
Cirsium palustre 3 2
Ctenidium molluscum 3
Dactylorhiza fuchsii 1
Drosera rotundifolia 1
Epilobium obscurum 1
Equisetum arvense 1
Equisetum fluviatile 3 1
Eriophorum angustifolium 3
Galium palustre 1
Holcus lanatus 1 2
Hydrocotyle vulgaris 3 2
Juncus acutiflorus 7 4 5 2
Juncus articulatus 2 3 2
Juncus bulbosus 2 3 3 6
Juncus conglomeratus 2
Juncus effusus 2
Luzula multiflora 2
Molinia caerulea 3 6 5 2
Narthecium ossifragum 2 1
Palustriella commutata 3 2
Pellia endiviifolia 3 3 3
Potamogeton polygonifolius 3 3
Potentilla erecta 2 3
Scorpidium cossonii 3 4
Sphagnum subnitens 3
Stellaria alsine 2
Succisa pratensis 3 3
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 20

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Minerotrophic Bog
Quadrat 8 9 10 11 12
Likely NVC comm M21b aff M21b M21b M21b M21b
Date 28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
Surveyor's name P EADES P EADES P EADES P EADES P EADES
pH 5.7
conductivity (micro-S / cm) 80
Photo ID AB8 AB9 AB10 AB11a,
AB11b
Easting 425215 425210 425219 425218 425208
Northing 393171 393259 393244 393224 393227
Current species name Domin Domin Domin Domin Domin
Agrostis stolonifera 2 3
Aulacomnium palustre 4 2
Betula pubescens 3 3
Calluna vulgaris 2 4 2 2
Dactylorhiza fuchsii 1
Dactylorhiza maculata
1
ericetorum
Drosera rotundifolia 2 3
Empetrum nigrum nigrum 5 3
Equisetum fluviatile 2
Erica tetralix 2 2 3 4 3
Eriophorum angustifolium 2 2 4 5
Eriophorum vaginatum 2 3
Holcus lanatus 3
Juncus acutiflorus 6 5
Juncus effusus 9 3
Molinia caerulea 5 3 4
Nardus stricta 2 2
Narthecium ossifragum 6 7 9
Polytrichum commune 4
Potentilla erecta 2 2 2
Rubus fruticosus agg. 2
Sphagnum capillifolium 4
Sphagnum denticulatum 1
Sphagnum fallax 5 9 5 5 2
Sphagnum palustre 3 2
Sphagnum papillosum 4 4
Sphagnum subnitens 3
Succisa pratensis 2
Vaccinium oxycoccos 5 3
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 21

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Fen-meadow and Rush Pasture
Quadrat 14 16 19 20 22
Likely NVC comm M23 M23 M22/M23/M24 M24/M25 M23
Date 28-08-2017 28-08-2017 28-08-2017 28-08-2017 28-08-2017
Surveyor's name P EADES P EADES P EADES P EADES P EADES
pH 6.7
conductivity (micro-S / cm) 310
Photo ID AB12, AB13 AB15 AB18 AB19 AB21
Easting 425215 425218 425199 425206 425238
Northing 393137 393068 393103 393091 393078
Current species name Domin Domin Domin Domin Domin
Achillea ptarmica 2 1
Agrostis canina 3
Agrostis stolonifera 3
Aulacomnium palustre 3
Brachythecium rivulare 2 2 3
Calliergonella cuspidata 5 3 3
Caltha palustris 4
Calypogeia fissa 2
Cardamine pratensis 2 3
Carex laevigata 1
Carex nigra 3 3
Carex panicea 4
Cirsium palustre 2 3 3 4 4
Dactylorhiza fuchsii 1
Epilobium obscurum 2 3
Epilobium palustre 3 2
Epilobium parviflorum 1 2
Equisetum fluviatile 2
Festuca rubra 2
Galium palustre 2 3 2 3
Galium saxatile 3
Holcus lanatus 2 3 3
Hydrocotyle vulgaris 5 4 4 2
Hypnum jutlandicum 3
Isolepis setacea 3 3
Juncus acutiflorus 9 9 8 6 3
Juncus articulatus 1
Juncus bulbosus 4
Juncus conglomeratus 2 2 2
Juncus effusus 2 1 6
Kindbergia praelonga 4 3 3
Lotus pedunculatus 3 6 4 3
Luzula multiflora 2
Lysimachia nemorum 1
Mentha aquatica 3 1
Molinia caerulea 3 2 3 8 4
Palustriella commutata 2
Plagiomnium undulatum 2
Poa trivialis 2
Potentilla erecta 3
Prunella vulgaris 3
Pseudoscleropodium purum 3 3
Ranunculus flammula 2
Rumex acetosa 2 3 3
Stellaria alsine 3
Succisa pratensis 3 4 1
Viola palustris 3 2
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 22

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Wet Heath and Molinia Mire
Quadrat 15 17 18 21
Likely NVC comm M15d M25a M25a M15d
Date 28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
28-08-
2017
Surveyor's name P EADES P EADES P EADES P EADES
pH
conductivity (micro-S / cm)
Photo ID AB14 AB16 AB17 AB20
Easting 425221 425222 425185 425235
Northing 393112 393049 393089 393095
Current species name Domin Domin Domin Domin
Achillea ptarmica 3
Agrostis stolonifera 3 3
Aulacomnium palustre 3
Calluna vulgaris 2
Carex echinata 1 3
Cirsium palustre 4 2
Deschampsia flexuosa 1 2
Dryopteris carthusiana 1 1
Epilobium obscurum 1
Epilobium palustre 3
Erica tetralix 1 1 3
Festuca ovina 3
Galium saxatile 3
Holcus lanatus 2
Hypnum jutlandicum 3 3 3 3
Juncus acutiflorus 8 3 6
Juncus bulbosus 3
Juncus conglomeratus 3 2 2 3
Juncus effusus 2
Juncus squarrosus 1
Kindbergia praelonga 2
Luzula multiflora 2 2
Molinia caerulea 7 9 7 8
Nardus stricta 3
Polytrichum commune 4
Potentilla erecta 3 3 3 3
Rumex acetosa 2
Sphagnum capillifolium 4
Sphagnum denticulatum 2 3
Sphagnum fallax 4
Sphagnum fimbriatum 3 4
Sphagnum palustre 3 4
Succisa pratensis 1
Vaccinium myrtillus 4 3 5
Vaccinium vitis-idaea 3 3 3 3
Viola palustris 1
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 23

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
8.3 Annex 3. Agden Bog Species
List
Species name
Achillea ptarmica
Agrostis canina
Agrostis capillaris
Agrostis stolonifera
Anagallis tenella
Aneura pinguis
Aulacomnium palustre
Betula pendula
Betula pubescens
Brachythecium rivulare
Brachythecium rutabulum
Briza media
Bryum pseudotriquetrum
Calliergonella cuspidata
Calluna vulgaris
Caltha palustris
Calypogeia fissa
Campylium stellatum
Cardamine pratensis
Carex demissa
Carex echinata
Carex flacca
Carex laevigata
Carex nigra
Carex panicea
Carex pulicaris
Cirsium palustre
Crataegus monogyna
Ctenidium molluscum
Dactylorhiza fuchsii
Dactylorhiza maculata
ericetorum
Deschampsia flexuosa
Digitalis purpurea
Drosera rotundifolia
Dryopteris carthusiana
Empetrum nigrum nigrum
Epilobium obscurum
Epilobium palustre
Epilobium parviflorum
Equisetum arvense
Equisetum fluviatile
Erica tetralix
Eriophorum angustifolium
Eriophorum vaginatum
Festuca ovina
Festuca rubra
Galium palustre
Galium saxatile
DAFOR
R
R
R
O
R
R
O
LD
O
R
O
R
R
F
O
R
R
R
O
R
R
R
R
O
O
R
F
O
R
O
O
O
O
O
R
O
R
R
R
R
O
F
O
R
O
R
O
O
Species name
Holcus lanatus
Holcus mollis
Hydrocotyle vulgaris
Hypnum jutlandicum
Ilex aquifolium
Isolepis setacea
Juncus acutiflorus
Juncus articulatus
Juncus bulbosus
Juncus conglomeratus
Juncus effusus
Juncus squarrosus
Kindbergia praelonga
Lotus pedunculatus
Luzula multiflora
Lysimachia nemorum
Mentha aquatica
Molinia caerulea
Nardus stricta
Narthecium ossifragum
Palustriella commutata
Pellia endiviifolia
Plagiomnium undulatum
Poa trivialis
Polytrichum commune
Potamogeton polygonifolius
Potentilla erecta
Prunella vulgaris
Pseudoscleropodium purum
Pteridium aquilinum
Quercus petraea
Ranunculus flammula
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus
Rubus fruticosus agg.
Rumex acetosa
Scorpidium cossonii
Sorbus aucuparia
Sphagnum capillifolium
Sphagnum denticulatum
Sphagnum fallax
Sphagnum fimbriatum
Sphagnum palustre
Sphagnum papillosum
Sphagnum subnitens
Stellaria alsine
Succisa pratensis
Ulex gallii
Vaccinium myrtillus
Vaccinium oxycoccos
Vaccinium vitis-idaea
Viola palustris
DAFOR
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 24
F
O
OLA
O
O
R
ALD
O
O
F
OLA
R
O
O
R
R
O
ALD
R
LA
R
R
O
O
R
O
F
O
O
LD
F
O
O
O
O
R
F
OLA
R
OLD
O
O
OLA
O
O
F
R
O
OLA
O
O

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
8.4 Annex 4. MATCH data
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 1
Community code co-efficient
W16 43.7 2 subcommunities.
W10 30.3 5 subcommunities.
W17 30.3 4 subcommunities.
W23 30.3 3 subcommunities.
W 4 29.4 3 subcommunities.
W15 29.2 4 subcommunities.
H 4 28.1 4 subcommunities.
W11 27.8 4 subcommunities.
H 2 26.9 3 subcommunities.
U 2 26.5 2 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
W16a 44.2
W16 43.7
W16b 40.2
W10a 34.6
H 2b 34.5
W10d 34.4
W11a 34.0
W17c 34.0
W15c 32.7
W23a 31.5
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 2
Community code co-efficient
W16 48.1 2 subcommunities.
W10 34.1 5 subcommunities.
W15 32.3 4 subcommunities.
W25 32.0 2 subcommunities.
W23 31.3 3 subcommunities.
W17 31.0 4 subcommunities.
U20 28.8 3 subcommunities.
W14 28.5 0 subcommunities.
U 2 26.3 2 subcommunities.
W11 25.2 4 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
W16a 51.1
W16 48.1
W16b 45.2
W10d 45.1
W10a 38.6
W15c 35.4
W10 34.1
W25b 34.0
W17c 33.7
U20c 33.4
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 25

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 3
Community code co-efficient
W16 44.4 2 subcommunities.
W10 34.6 5 subcommunities.
W17 31.4 4 subcommunities.
W15 29.4 4 subcommunities.
W23 28.6 3 subcommunities.
U20 27.9 3 subcommunities.
W11 27.8 4 subcommunities.
U 2 26.8 2 subcommunities.
W25 26.2 2 subcommunities.
W14 25.9 0 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
W16a 45.0
W16 44.4
W16b 42.1
W10a 38.9
W10d 37.4
W10 34.6
W15c 34.3
W17c 34.0
W10c 33.4
W11a 32.9
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 4
Community code co-efficient
M10 33.6 3 subcommunities.
M11 32.4 2 subcommunities.
M37 29.8 0 subcommunities.
M13 27.8 3 subcommunities.
M26 27.5 2 subcommunities.
M 9 26.4 2 subcommunities.
M25 24.5 3 subcommunities.
M14 24.4 0 subcommunities.
M29 24.0 0 subcommunities.
M38 23.4 0 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M10a 34.9
M10 33.6
M11 32.4
M13a 31.9
M10b 30.8
M11b 30.0
M37 29.8
M11a 29.2
M13 27.8
M26a 27.7
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 26

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 5
Community code co-efficient
M29 28.9 0 subcommunities.
M10 28.6 3 subcommunities.
M11 26.9 2 subcommunities.
M26 26.9 2 subcommunities.
SD13 26.5 2 subcommunities.
M 9 25.6 2 subcommunities.
M13 24.9 3 subcommunities.
SD14 24.9 4 subcommunities.
M23 24.1 2 subcommunities.
SD17 23.8 4 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
SD14c 32.3
M29 28.9
M10 28.6
M10a 28.3
SD13b 27.5
M26b 26.9
M11 26.9
M26 26.9
SD13a 26.8
SD13 26.5
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 6
Community code co-efficient
M10 41.7 3 subcommunities.
M13 39.1 3 subcommunities.
M26 35.9 2 subcommunities.
M 9 34.8 2 subcommunities.
M29 34.8 0 subcommunities.
M24 33.1 3 subcommunities.
M11 32.6 2 subcommunities.
M14 32.0 0 subcommunities.
M25 29.8 3 subcommunities.
M 6 27.6 4 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M13b 43.5
M10b 42.2
M10 41.7
M10a 39.3
M13 39.1
M13c 37.7
M 9a 36.3
M26 35.9
M26b 35.0
M 9 34.8
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 27

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 7
Community code co-efficient
M29 37.0 0 subcommunities.
M23 32.4 2 subcommunities.
M25 30.5 3 subcommunities.
M 6 29.2 4 subcommunities.
M26 27.9 2 subcommunities.
M24 27.7 3 subcommunities.
M10 26.1 3 subcommunities.
M15 25.9 4 subcommunities.
M13 25.9 3 subcommunities.
M14 24.3 0 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M29 37.0
M 6d 34.5
M23a 32.6
M23 32.4
M 6b 31.3
M25 30.5
M25c 29.3
M25b 29.2
M 6 29.2
M25a 29.1
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 8
Community code co-efficient
M21 51.8 2 subcommunities.
M14 40.9 0 subcommunities.
M15 39.4 4 subcommunities.
M25 38.3 3 subcommunities.
M 6 37.5 4 subcommunities.
M17 37.0 3 subcommunities.
M16 32.9 4 subcommunities.
M 4 32.0 0 subcommunities.
M 2 28.7 2 subcommunities.
M 1 28.7 0 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M21b 53.6
M21 51.8
M25a 50.6
M 6d 44.0
M15b 43.7
M21a 43.6
M16b 41.1
M14 40.9
M17a 39.5
M15 39.4
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 28

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 9
Community code co-efficient
M 2 41.8 2 subcommunities.
M21 36.7 2 subcommunities.
W 4 34.4 3 subcommunities.
M 4 33.5 0 subcommunities.
M 3 29.7 0 subcommunities.
M16 28.0 4 subcommunities.
M18 27.7 2 subcommunities.
M15 27.4 4 subcommunities.
M 6 27.0 4 subcommunities.
M17 24.0 3 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
W 4c 42.8
M 2b 42.8
M 2 41.8
M21b 40.6
M21 36.7
M 6c 34.9
W 4 34.4
M 4 33.5
M 3 29.7
M16a 29.6
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 10
Community code co-efficient
M18 46.8 2 subcommunities.
M 2 45.8 2 subcommunities.
M21 43.9 2 subcommunities.
M17 38.6 3 subcommunities.
M19 35.7 3 subcommunities.
M15 33.0 4 subcommunities.
W 4 32.2 3 subcommunities.
M20 28.4 2 subcommunities.
M 7 26.8 2 subcommunities.
M16 26.5 4 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M 2b 50.7
M18a 49.1
M21b 47.1
M18 46.8
M 2 45.8
M21 43.9
M18b 43.5
M19a 42.1
M17 38.6
M17a 38.2
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 29

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 11
Community code co-efficient
M21 63.3 2 subcommunities.
M 2 54.9 2 subcommunities.
M17 51.2 3 subcommunities.
M18 49.8 2 subcommunities.
M15 47.7 4 subcommunities.
M16 38.2 4 subcommunities.
M14 36.9 0 subcommunities.
M19 34.6 3 subcommunities.
M 6 34.1 4 subcommunities.
M25 31.9 3 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M21b 67.4
M21 63.3
M 2b 57.7
M 2 54.9
M17a 54.8
M18a 53.8
M17 51.2
M15b 51.1
M18 49.8
M21a 48.8
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 12
Community code co-efficient
M21 48.5 2 subcommunities.
M15 46.0 4 subcommunities.
M17 40.9 3 subcommunities.
M16 40.2 4 subcommunities.
M25 40.0 3 subcommunities.
H 4 39.5 4 subcommunities.
M 6 35.4 4 subcommunities.
M14 34.9 0 subcommunities.
M 2 31.4 2 subcommunities.
W 4 31.2 3 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M21b 56.7
M25a 51.2
M15b 49.8
M15c 49.7
M21 48.5
M 6d 48.5
M15 46.0
M16a 44.1
M15d 41.6
M15a 41.4
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 30

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 13
Community code co-efficient
W16 44.7 2 subcommunities.
W 4 32.7 3 subcommunities.
W17 29.7 4 subcommunities.
H 2 29.5 3 subcommunities.
W10 29.2 5 subcommunities.
U 2 28.7 2 subcommunities.
W23 26.9 3 subcommunities.
W25 26.7 2 subcommunities.
W11 25.9 4 subcommunities.
W15 25.6 4 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
W16a 45.4
W16 44.7
W16b 40.2
W10d 36.2
W17c 34.9
W10a 34.2
W 4 32.7
H 2b 31.8
W 4a 31.7
U 2a 31.4
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 14
Community code co-efficient
M23 40.0 2 subcommunities.
SD15 33.4 4 subcommunities.
M25 33.3 3 subcommunities.
M 9 31.5 2 subcommunities.
M22 31.4 4 subcommunities.
S27 31.3 2 subcommunities.
W 3 31.0 0 subcommunities.
M24 30.6 3 subcommunities.
M 5 30.1 0 subcommunities.
SD17 28.0 4 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M23b 41.6
M23a 40.9
M23 40.0
M25c 39.1
SD15a 37.2
S27a 34.2
SD17d 34.1
SD15 33.4
M25 33.3
M24c 33.1
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 31

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 15
Community code co-efficient
H12 36.2 3 subcommunities.
M15 35.4 4 subcommunities.
H 4 34.6 4 subcommunities.
M25 34.3 3 subcommunities.
M17 32.1 3 subcommunities.
U 2 31.9 2 subcommunities.
H16 31.7 3 subcommunities.
W18 31.0 5 subcommunities.
M16 30.1 4 subcommunities.
H18 29.7 3 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M15d 41.7
H12a 38.3
M15c 38.0
H12 36.2
M15 35.4
H12c 35.4
M25a 35.1
H 4 34.6
M25 34.3
H12b 33.7
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 16
Community code co-efficient
M23 51.3 2 subcommunities.
M25 40.0 3 subcommunities.
W 1 33.2 0 subcommunities.
M28 31.7 3 subcommunities.
M27 30.8 3 subcommunities.
M 6 30.3 4 subcommunities.
W 4 27.8 3 subcommunities.
M29 27.6 0 subcommunities.
M24 27.6 3 subcommunities.
SD15 26.5 4 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M23b 51.4
M23 51.3
M23a 49.1
M25c 48.4
M27c 42.4
M25 40.0
W 4b 39.8
M25b 38.3
M28a 37.3
M24c 33.6
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 32

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 17
Community code co-efficient
M15 37.9 4 subcommunities.
M 6 37.7 4 subcommunities.
M25 35.6 3 subcommunities.
W 4 34.2 3 subcommunities.
M21 29.3 2 subcommunities.
M 4 29.3 0 subcommunities.
H 4 26.0 4 subcommunities.
M16 25.7 4 subcommunities.
M17 25.2 3 subcommunities.
M14 25.0 0 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M 6d 49.1
M25a 40.8
M15 37.9
M 6 37.7
M 6a 37.4
W 4c 37.3
M15b 36.2
M25 35.6
M21b 35.3
M15a 34.6
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 18
Community code co-efficient
M25 33.9 3 subcommunities.
M15 27.6 4 subcommunities.
M 6 27.1 4 subcommunities.
M 4 24.1 0 subcommunities.
M17 23.6 3 subcommunities.
M24 22.5 3 subcommunities.
M23 20.8 2 subcommunities.
H12 20.7 3 subcommunities.
W 4 20.2 3 subcommunities.
H16 19.9 3 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M 6d 37.6
M25 33.9
M25a 33.0
M25c 32.0
M25b 30.0
M15d 28.2
M15c 28.1
M15 27.6
M24c 27.3
M 6 27.1
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 33

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 19
Community code co-efficient
M23 45.6 2 subcommunities.
M22 38.8 4 subcommunities.
M24 38.2 3 subcommunities.
SD15 35.8 4 subcommunities.
M25 35.5 3 subcommunities.
M28 34.7 3 subcommunities.
M27 30.2 3 subcommunities.
SD17 30.2 4 subcommunities.
W 3 29.1 0 subcommunities.
M 9 28.7 2 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M23a 48.8
M23b 45.9
M23 45.6
M24c 43.0
M25c 39.6
M28a 39.6
M22 38.8
M24 38.2
M22b 38.2
M27c 38.0
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 20
Community code co-efficient
M25 41.2 3 subcommunities.
M24 39.2 3 subcommunities.
M26 31.9 2 subcommunities.
M23 30.0 2 subcommunities.
M13 29.2 3 subcommunities.
M22 28.7 4 subcommunities.
M15 24.1 4 subcommunities.
M 6 24.0 4 subcommunities.
SD15 23.6 4 subcommunities.
M 9 23.6 2 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M25 41.2
M25c 40.8
M24c 39.9
M24 39.2
M25b 38.1
M23a 36.7
M13a 35.0
M24b 34.7
M24a 34.0
M26 31.9
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 34

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 21
Community code co-efficient
M15 38.0 4 subcommunities.
M25 32.4 3 subcommunities.
H12 31.5 3 subcommunities.
M 6 29.7 4 subcommunities.
M17 28.3 3 subcommunities.
M21 25.9 2 subcommunities.
M16 25.2 4 subcommunities.
H 4 25.2 4 subcommunities.
M14 24.7 0 subcommunities.
U 5 24.4 5 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M15d 38.8
M15 38.0
M15b 35.3
M15c 33.9
M 6a 33.8
M 6d 33.5
M15a 33.2
M25a 32.5
M16b 32.5
M25 32.4
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 22
Community code co-efficient
M23 40.7 2 subcommunities.
M25 28.4 3 subcommunities.
M28 26.0 3 subcommunities.
M27 24.8 3 subcommunities.
M24 24.7 3 subcommunities.
M 5 24.4 0 subcommunities.
M 6 23.5 4 subcommunities.
M29 22.8 0 subcommunities.
W 1 22.7 0 subcommunities.
W 4 21.1 3 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M23 40.7
M23b 39.4
M23a 38.5
M25c 33.6
M27c 32.6
W 4b 30.7
M25b 29.8
M28a 29.4
M24c 29.0
M25 28.4
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 35

Agden Bog Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 23
Community code co-efficient
W 4 34.2 3 subcommunities.
M 4 32.6 0 subcommunities.
M 6 29.7 4 subcommunities.
M23 27.7 2 subcommunities.
M25 24.2 3 subcommunities.
M 5 24.0 0 subcommunities.
W 2 21.0 2 subcommunities.
M35 18.6 0 subcommunities.
MG10 18.1 3 subcommunities.
MG13 17.9 0 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
W 4b 35.0
M 6c 34.3
W 4 34.2
W 4c 33.2
M 4 32.6
M 6a 30.8
M 6 29.7
M 6d 29.4
M23b 29.4
M23 27.7
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 36

WETLAND ECOLOGY · BOTANICAL SURVEY· PROTECTED SPECIES
Dr Phil Eades
Consultant Ecologist
Member CIEEM
Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve
Vegetation Survey
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
11 March 2018
Submitted to:
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Wildscapes Ltd
Victoria Hall
37 Stafford Road
SHEFFIELD S2 2SF
Prepared by:
Dr Philip Eades
Member CIEEM

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve
Vegetation Survey
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Scope of work:
Client:
Vegetation survey at Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve, Sheffield.
Wildscapes Ltd
Version: 1
Date of issue: 11 March 2018
Author:
Philip Eades, BSc, PhD, Member CIEEM
Consultant Ecologist
Email:
drphileades@gmail.com
Tel.: 0114 2666886
Mobile: 07791 428242
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist
i

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve
Vegetation Survey
CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1
2.0 SURVEY METHODS ........................................................................... 1
3.0 BASELINE SURVEY RESULTS .......................................................... 2
3.1 Site Description and Physical Features ........................... 2
3.2 Vegetation Descriptions .................................................... 2
3.3 Hydrochemistry .................................................................. 5
3.4 Current Site Management .................................................. 5
4.0 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 6
5.0 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 6
6.0 MONITORING PROPOSALS .............................................................. 7
7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................... 8
8.0 ANNEXES ........................................................................................... 9
8.1 Annex 1. Figures ................................................................ 9
8.2 Annex 2. Survey Data....................................................... 15
8.3 Annex 3. Hammond’s Field Species List ........................ 21
8.4 Annex 4. MATCH data ...................................................... 22
FIGURES
TABLES
Figure 1 Location map 10
Figure 2 NVC vegetation map 11
Figure 3 Vegetation types & site features 12
Figure 4 Management suggestions 13
Figure 5 Proposed monitoring locations 14
Table 1. Proposed monitoring points and actions. ................................ 7
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist
ii

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
1.0 Introduction
Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve is situated on the western edge of Sheffield, in the
moorland fringe of the Peak District, in South Yorkshire (OS grid ref: SK 263 860) (Figure 1).
It lies adjacent to Redmires Reservoirs within a broad, shallow side-valley on the south side of
Rivelin Valley, close to where Wyming Brook, the reservoirs’ outflow, joins the River Rivelin.
The confluence of the Rivelin with the River Don is about 9 km downstream of Hammond’s
Field.
The reserve is situated within the South Pennine Moors Special Protected Area (SPA), and
predominantly supports semi-improved rush pasture, with smaller areas of damp grassland
and acidic fen. It supports a wide range of common wetland plants, with a few less common
species, and also provides habitat for a number of wild animals, particularly wading birds such
as curlew, snipe, redshank and lapwing. Other species that use the site include an abundance
of common toads and smooth newts, and invertebrates such as the common hawker
dragonfly, which may breed in the drainage ditch adjacent to the southern boundary wall.
Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve has recently been taken into management by Sheffield
Wildlife Trust, which is currently developing a management plan. The vegetation of
Hammond’s Field has not been surveyed in detail before, and consequently a baseline survey
was commissioned, in order to inform possibilities for management and monitoring.
2.0 Survey Methods
A walkover of the site was undertaken first, in order to roughly map the different vegetation
types as they appeared in the field, and to target note particular features. This was followed by
more detailed quadrat sampling, following standard procedure. Visually uniform stands of
vegetation were surveyed, and at least one representative sample was recorded in each
vegetation type with Domin 1 cover values for all plant species present, using suitable sized
quadrats (4x4 m for species-poor rush pasture; 2x2 m for lower growing rush pasture and
grassland; 1x4 m for narrow stands of fen and acid grassland). Coordinates of all samples and
target note locations were recorded using a hand-held global positioning device (GPS), and
representative digital photographs were taken. Spot measurements of pH and electrical
conductivity (EC) were made using a handheld meter wherever there was 'free' water.
Additional information was gathered at selected sample locations, to facilitate future
vegetation monitoring: sward mean height, both including and excluding tall rushes;
herb/grass ratio (where ‘herbs’ includes ferns, sedges and rushes); and sward density, using a
standard ‘drop disc’.
Sample data were analysed to identify the National Vegetation Classification (NVC)
communities present (see Rodwell, 1991, et seq.). Data were initially classified using MATCH
(Malloch, 1992) (results presented in Annex 4). The resulting coefficients of ‘fit’ with various
NVC plant communities were examined in the light of the written community descriptions
provided in the published accounts (Rodwell, 1991, et seq.; Wheeler, Shaw & Tanner, 2009),
with the aim of assessing which NVC type was considered to be the most likely. It should be
noted that not all stands formed a good fit with identified NVC units, and the chosen plant
community was not always that given the highest MATCH coefficient.
The site was surveyed on 13 & 14 July by Phil Eades, both warm, dry days. Nomenclature
follows Stace (2010) for higher plants, and Smith (2004) for bryophytes.
1 Domin cover values: 1:

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
3.0 Baseline Survey Results
An overview of Hammond’s Field and its surroundings is provided below, followed by
detailed descriptions of the different NVC plant communities that have been identified; no
particularly notable plant species were found at the site. Notes have also been made of
physical features at the site, such as walls and ditches, and ongoing site management. Figures
showing vegetation types and features of importance are provided in Annex 1. Vegetation
survey quadrat data are provided as a spreadsheet (‘Hammond’s Field survey data 07-03-
2018’), and are reproduced in Annex 2. A list of all plant species recorded at Hammond’s
Field in 2017 is provided in Annex 3 with DAFOR 2 scores. MATCH analysis outputs are
provided in Annex 4. Digital photos are provided on a separate DVD.
3.1 Site Description and Physical Features
Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve is situated at an altitude of approximately 340 m, in a
broad, shallow side valley on the southern side of Rivelin Valley, close to the three Redmires
Reservoirs (Figure 1). The reserve is surrounded by more heavily improved pasture
immediately to the north and west, heather moorland to the north-east, rushy pastures and
improved pastures to the east, and patches of coniferous woodland flanking the reservoir to
the south. More broadly, the valley supports extensive areas of flushed acidic rush pasture, dry
heather moorland, and conifer plantations, with smaller areas of improved pasture.
The Reserve is bounded by intact drystone walls on all four sides, and slopes gently to the
south and east. The field has previously been drained in a herring-bone pattern, most easily
seen on aerial photos of the site, but the ditches are still visible on the ground. Many of the
ditches have been infilled, particularly on the upslope, north-western side, while those that
remain were mostly dry at the time of survey. A brick structure associated with the site
drainage is present at the lowest, south-eastern corner of the field, and a large scrape has been
dug near the southern field boundary. A broad and partly water-filled ditch is present along
the southern boundary.
The field is a patchwork of different types of vegetation. Much of the southern part supports
dense, species-poor rushy vegetation, with nettles, willowherbs and scattered grasses and
thistles. This grades northwards into more open and somewhat more diverse rushy grassland,
with more abundant grasses. Within this there are various sized patches of low-growing damp
grassland with abundant sedges, grasses, and other herbs. In places these are cut through by
dense stands of creeping thistle, which appear to mark where ditches have been infilled. There
are also a few areas of purple moor-grass, and most notably some small patches of acidic fen
vegetation with occasional Sphagnum bog-mosses and sedges.
3.2 Vegetation Descriptions
Vegetation descriptions are provided below, and illustrated in Figure 2. It should be noted that
in general the different vegetation types grade quite gradually into each other and the
community boundaries are usually not as sharply defined as the Figure would indicate.
2 D = dominant; A = abundant; F = frequent; O = occasional; R = rare; L = locally
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 2

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
3.2.1 Rush Pasture
M23a Juncus effusus/acutiflorus – Galium palustre rush pasture, Juncus acutiflorus sub-community
(Q5)
M23b Juncus effusus/acutiflorus – Galium palustre rush pasture, Juncus effusus sub-community
(Q1, Q2 & Q6)
MG10a Holcus lanatus – Juncus effusus rush pasture, Typical sub-community (Q8, Q11 & Q16)
The field is dominated by rush pasture of one sort or another. Most of the southern part is
characterised by tall, dense soft rush (Juncus effusus) with locally abundant nettles (Urtica dioica),
that can be classified as the M23b NVC plant community. Within this vegetation other
species are scattered at low frequency, including a range of grasses: velvet bent (Agrostis canina),
creeping bent (Agrostis stolonifera), tufted hair-grass (Deschampsia cespitosa), Yorkshire fog (Holcus
lanatus) and rough meadow grass (Poa trivialis). There are also a few tall flowering forbs such as
creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense), marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre), short-fruited willowherb
(Epilobium obscurum), marsh willowherb (Epilobium palustre), and rarely the conspicuous white
flower spikes of valerian (Valeriana officinalis); and some smaller species such as lady’s smock
(Cardamine pratensis), marsh bedstraw (Galium palustre), creeping forget-me-not (Myosotis secunda),
and bog stitchwort (Stellaria alsine). Bramble (Rubus fruticosus) was also found very occasionally.
Bryophytes are sparse, but include the common species Brachythecium rivulare, Brachythecium
rutabulum and Kindbergia praelonga.
Smaller patches of M23b are found further north, embedded in more open rushy vegetation
that differs mainly in the reduced abundance of soft rush, the much greater cover and variety
of grasses, and overall its slightly greater plant diversity. The following grasses are found here,
sometimes in local abundance: creeping bent, sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum),
crested dog’s-tail (Cynosaurus cristatus), tufted hair-grass, tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea), red
fescue (Festuca rubra) and Yorkshire fog. Oval sedge (Carex leporina) is scattered, common
sedge (Carex nigra) is occasional but locally abundant, and heath rush (Juncus squarrosus) is rare.
The range of forbs is similar to the dense soft rush areas, though lacking nettles and valerian,
and with the addition of plants such as common mouse-ear (Cerastium fontanum), cats-ear
(Hypochaeris radicata), tormentil (Potentilla erecta), selfheal, creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens)
and common sorrel (Rumex acetosa). This open, grass- and rush-dominated vegetation is classed
as MG10a rush pasture.
In the south-western corner of the site, embedded within the dense and species-poor M23b, is
a small patch that is dominated by sharp-flowered rush (Juncus acutiflorus), forming a fairly open
and species-rich sward with a range of other plants including grasses (creeping bent, sweet
vernal grass, Yorkshire fog, and mat grass (Nardus stricta)); common sedge, marsh thistle, heath
bedstraw (Galium saxatile), heath wood-rush (Luzula multiflora), tormentil, selfheal, creeping
buttercup, common sorrel and the bryophyte Calliergonella cuspidata. This vegetation type is
classed as M23a rush pasture.
3.2.2 Neutral Grassland
MG 6b Lolium perenne – Cynosaurus cristatus grassland, Anthoxanthum odoratum sub-community
(Q7 & Q10)
MG 9 Holcus lanatus – Deschampsia cespitosa grassland (Q9)
Within the rush pasture, particularly the more open central and northern parts, are several
quite diverse, low-growing, grass-dominated areas. Most of these are best described as MG 6b
neutral grassland, supporting an abundance of grasses: creeping bent, sweet vernal grass,
crested dog’s-tail, tufted hair-grass, red fescue, and Yorkshire fog, with a little mat grass. There
is also frequent field wood-rush, oval sedge and locally abundant common sedge, while soft
rush is occasional, and heath rush is locally abundant. Smaller forbs are characterised by
frequent mouse-ear, cats-ear, selfheal, creeping buttercup, and white clover (Trifolium repens),
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 3

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
and occasional daisy (Bellis perennis), mouse-ear hawkweed (Pilosella officinarum agg.), tormentil
and dandelion (Taraxacum agg.). Taller forbs include both creeping thistle and marsh thistle,
meadow buttercup (Ranunculus acris) and occasionally common sorrel. Bryophytes comprise
Calliergonella cuspidata and Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus.
One of the larger grassy patches in the north-eastern part of the field is far less diverse than
the other stands described above, and has stronger affinity to MG 9 grassland. It has scattered
tufted hair-grass, mingled with creeping bent, sweet vernal grass, crested dog’s-tail, red fescue,
mat grass and abundant common sedge. Forbs are less diverse, with abundant creeping thistle,
and scattered cats-ear, ribwort plantain (Plantago lanceolata), tormentil, selfheal and creeping
buttercup.
3.2.3 Molinia Grassland
M25b Molinia caerulea – Potentilla erecta mire, Anthoxanthum odoratum sub-community
(Q12, Q15 & Q17)
In the central eastern part of the field, and on the western side of the scrape, there are several
small patches of grassland that are characterised by the presence of purple moor-grass (Molinia
caerulea), sometimes in great abundance. It is accompanied by creeping bent, sweet vernal
grass, red fescue, Yorkshire fog, and locally abundant mat grass. Carnation sedge (Carex
panicea) is locally abundant, as are soft rush and heath rush. Other plants include frequent
marsh thistle and tormentil, occasional heath bedstraw, heath wood-rush, and rarely heather
(Calluna vulgaris) and common sorrel. Scattered bryophytes include Calliergonella cuspidata,
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus and Sphagnum denticulatum. This vegetation is probably best described
as the M25b community. The scrape is fairly recent and it is to be expected that the nature of
the vegetation there will continue to develop and change in coming years.
3.2.4 Acidic Fen
M 6b Carex echinata – Sphagnum recurvum/auriculatum mire (Q3, Q4 & Q14)
Adjacent to the small area of M23a Juncus acutiflorus rush pasture, in the south-western part of
the site, is a narrow, wet strip of low-growing, sedge-, rush- and grass-rich vegetation with a
prominent patch of Sphagnum fallax at its southern end. Common sedge and star sedge (Carex
echinata) are particularly abundant, as are mat grass and tormentil, while soft rush is locally
abundant. This stand has been assigned to the M 6b acidic mire community, although the
grassier parts also have affinity to damp acidic grassland (U5, see below).
A second area of similar M 6b vegetation is found along the southern edge of the pool within
the scrape area. It is less grassy, and more rushy, with the smaller jointed rush (Juncus
articulatus) and bulbous rush (Juncus bulbosus) mixed with abundant soft rush, and also abundant
common sedge and common cottongrass (Eriophorum angustifolium), amongst locally abundant
bryophytes: Calliergonella cuspidata, Polytrichum commune, and Sphagnum denticulatum.
This vegetation type, though not particularly uncommon in an upland or moorland context, is
very restricted in area at this site.
3.2.5 Acid Grassland
U5a Nardus stricta – Galium saxatile grassland, Species-poor sub-community (Q13)
At the southern edge of the site, immediately to the south-east of the scrape, on the north side
of the boundary ditch, there is a small patch of low-growing acidic grassland embedded within
dense soft rush vegetation. The grassland is quite species-poor, and supports a mixture of
creeping bent, sweet vernal grass, common sedge, wavy hair-grass (), sheep’s fescue (), heath
wood-rush, purple moor-grass, and mat grass. Forbs are restricted to heath bedstraw and
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 4

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
tormentil, and there are a few bryophytes in the form of Pseudoscleropodium purum and
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus. This vegetation has strong affinity to the species-poor subcommunity
of U5 grassland.
3.2.6 Typha Swamp
S12a Typha latifolia swamp, Typha latifolia sub-community (Q18)
About one quarter of the open area of the pool in the scrape is dominated by bulrush (Typha
latifolia). This plant is a typical colonist of standing open water bodies that are relatively
nutrient-rich, and will tolerate temporary drying in summer.
3.3 Hydrochemistry
Basic hydrochemical data (pH and electrical conductivity (EC)) was gathered from the margin
of the pool in the scrape (Figure 3), showing the water to be mildly acidic (pH 6.3) and very
base-poor (60 µS cm -1 ). This is to be expected from slightly peaty soils that have developed
over the acidic Millstone Grit Group of rocks that are found beneath the site.
3.4 Current Site Management
Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve is managed by Sheffield Wildlife Trust, and is currently
grazed by sheep as part of a larger grazing unit: 40 sheep were present at the time of survey.
Some signs of rabbit grazing were also evident. A scrape about 40 m across was constructed
perhaps 20 years ago, with shallow peaty margins that are becoming colonised by soft rush,
and a gently sloping drawdown zone with bare soil that is becoming colonised by mat grass
and purple moor-grass. Roughly two-thirds of the scrape was occupied by open water at the
time of survey, partly filled by the stand of bulrush.
The Reserve is bounded by intact drystone walls on all four sides, with gates opening at the
south-west, north-west and north-east corners. The field has previously been drained in a
herring-bone pattern, although many of the ditches appear to have been infilled, particularly
on the upslope, north-western side (Figure 3). The south-eastern part of the main axial ditch
has not been infilled, though it was dry at the time of survey, and it leads directly to a brick
structure at the lowest, south-eastern corner of the field (photo HF19). The structure is
partially covered, but within it a pipe can be seen entering from the axial ditch (photo HF20),
and a second pipe exiting it to the south, presumably feeding into a drainage ditch in the field
to the south. This suggests that there may still be intact tile drains beneath the main axial
drain.
Near the south-western corner of the field there is a broad, rush-filled ditch running northwest
to south-east, leading into a broad and partly water-filled ditch that runs along the
southern boundary, and exits at the south-eastern corner of the site.
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 5

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
4.0 Discussion
Hammond’s Field is probably most important in terms of providing habitat for wading birds,
amphibians, and invertebrates such as dragonflies. It is also an example of relatively
unimproved wet pasture of the moorland fringe, and as such, supports vegetation of the
‘Purple Moor-Grass & Rush Pasture’ Priority Habitat Type (PHT). Other important habitat
types include small patches of acidic fen and swamp, which are considered to be forms of
Lowland Fen PHT.
Ditch infilling and scrape construction have been undertaken in the recent past, in an attempt
to retain water on the site and improve habitat for wading birds, and continued sheep grazing
has undoubtedly helped to provide a range of short swards and taller tussocky areas that also
benefit wading birds. The intensity of sheep grazing appears appropriate, but is unlikely to
reduce soft rush dominance in the southern part of the site. That part of the site would benefit
from being opened up somewhat, both to increase botanical diversity, and to increase the area
suited to nesting and foraging of ground-nesting birds. Because soft rush is not very palatable
to livestock, this would probably require the rushes to be topped using a brush cutter.
Creeping thistle is quite abundant in the northern part of the site, perhaps due to disturbance
from infilling the ditches, and its spread should be monitored, and if necessary controlled.
Other possibilities for habitat enhancement include installing dams at the south-eastern end of
the axial ditch, allowing pools to form and provide habitat for amphibians and invertebrates.
There may also be scope for construction of one or two more small scrapes in the wetter
southern part of the site, which would benefit birds, amphibians and invertebrates, and might
encourage the development of additional areas of acidic fen vegetation.
It would be worth checking for the presence of tile drains beneath the unfilled dry ditch(es),
and if they are present, make efforts to break them, so that they no longer take water off site.
If the adjacent landowner is amenable, water levels in the southern boundary ditch could be
raised by installing dams, to increase the extent of open water habitat in the field. However,
this would be likely to cause the adjacent field to the south to become wetter. The banks of
flooded ditches (and new scrapes) would need to be engineered to be gently sloping, so as not
to create a hazard to livestock.
5.0 Management Recommendations
Management suggestions are illustrated in Figure 4.
Where the rushes are very dense, it is recommended that they are topped with a brushcutter
in early June, removing the cut material. Consider cutting the dense rushes at
the western margin of the scrape to provide more open conditions for wading birds.
Creeping thistle should be monitored to the north-east of the axial ditch, and if
necessary, control measures undertaken.
Where practical, dam ditches to raise water levels (but consider the possible impact
upon adjacent farmland).
Consider constructing one or two more small scrapes in the southern part of the site.
Where not already done, break tile drains beneath the dry ditch(es).
Typha latifolia is likely to completely colonise the scrape in future years; therefore
consider targeted Typha clearance to maintain some open conditions for waders.
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 6

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
6.0 Monitoring Proposals
The following monitoring should be undertaken at a suitable frequency (ideally no less than
every three to five years). A basic monitoring programme could simply aim to undertake these
actions as listed below. A more detailed programme could incorporate these in a more
objective procedure, which would involve revisiting specified locations (e.g. a sub-set of the
sample points of this survey) as part of a ‘W-walk’, recording the presence of all plant species
(or a limited set of ‘indicator’ species) using the DAFOR scale.
Monitor continued presence of acidic fen areas, and continued presence and
abundance of species such as Sphagnum mosses, sedges and cottongrass.
Monitor sward density and species-richness of dense rush areas if rush control is
undertaken.
Monitor extent of creeping thistle patches.
Monitor sward density and species-richness of open grassy areas and open rush
pasture areas.
Additional information would also help to quantify the effects of management actions: sward
height, sward density, herb-grass ratio. Such data were gathered as part of the current survey
to provide a base-line, should this approach be taken (provided as a separate spreadsheet:
‘Hammonds mon template 10-03-2018’). Revisiting the monitoring points suggested in Table
1 and Figure 5, and taking representative photos, should provide sufficient information to
assess the effect of ongoing management and other factors affecting the site. If new scrapes
are created or ditches blocked and flooded, additional monitoring points should be added as
appropriate.
Further monitoring in the form of Natural England condition assessments for breeding birds
might be valuable. Most of the required information could be taken from the monitoring
suggested above.
Table 1. Proposed monitoring points and actions.
(Refer to Figure 5)
Monitoring Feature Action Easting Northing
point
1 Acidic fen Species-list, sward height & density 426268 385882
2 Species-poor rush pasture Species-list, sward height & density 426304 385900
3 Fringing acidic fen Species-list, sward height & density 426364 385897
Typha in scrape Check extent & density whilst at 3.
4 Species-poor rush pasture Species-list, sward height & density 426412 385926
5 Molinia grassland Species-list, sward height & density 426365 385965
Creeping thistle Check extent & density between 5, 6 & 7
6 Tufted hair-grass grassland Species-list, sward height & density 426343 386035
7 Open rush pasture Species-list, sward height & density 426282 386050
8 Neutral grassland Species-list, sward height & density 426235 386066
9 Open rush pasture Species-list, sward height & density 426247 386006
10 Neutral grassland Species-list, sward height & density 426307 385974
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 7

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
7.0 References
JNCC (2011). A compilation of proposed additions and revisions to vegetation types in the National
Vegetation Classification. JNCC, Peterborough.
Malloch, A.J.C. (1992). MATCH – a computer programme to aid the assignment of vegetation data to the
communities and sub-communities of the National Vegetation Classification. University of
Lancaster, Lancaster.
Rodwell, J. (ed.) (1991). British Plant Communities, Volume 2. Mires & heaths. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell, J. (ed.) (1992). British Plant Communities, Volume 3. Grasslands & montane communities.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell, J. (ed.) (1995). British Plant Communities, Volume 4. Aquatic communities, swamps and tallherb
fens. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell, J.S., Dring, J.C., Averis, A.B.G., Proctor, M.C.F., Malloch, A.J.C., Schaminée, J.N.J.,
& Dargie T.C.D. (2000). Review of coverage of the National Vegetation Classification. JNCC
Report No. 302. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Smith, A.J.E. (2004). The Moss Flora of Britain and Ireland. 2nd Ed., Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge.
Stace, C. (2010). New flora of the British Isles (3 rd edition). Cambridge University Press.
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 8

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
8.0 Annexes
8.1 Annex 1. Figures
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 9

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 10

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 11

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 12

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 13

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 14

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
8.2 Annex 2. Survey Data
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 15

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Rush Pasture
Quadrat ID 1 2 6 5 8 11 16
Likely NVC comm M 23b M 23b M 23b M 23a MG 10a MG 10a MG 10a
Date 13/07/201 13/07/201 13/07/201 13/07/2017 13/07/2017 13/07/2017 13/07/201
7
7 7
7
Surveyor's name P EADES P EADES P EADES P EADES P EADES P EADES P EADES
Quadrat size 4x4m 4x4 m 4x4 m 2x2 m 2x2 m 2x2 m 2x2 m
Photo ID HF1 HF2 HF6 HF5 HF8 HF11 HF16
Easting 426412 426304 426267 426273 426282 426361 426247
Northing 385926 385900 385916 385891 386050 385988 386006
Species-richness 14 11 12 16 13 17 17
Current species name Domin Domin Domin Domin Domin Domin Domin
Agrostis canina 4 2
Agrostis stolonifera 3 3 4 3 4
Anthoxanthum odoratum 3 4 4 5
Athyrium filix-femina 1
Brachythecium rivulare 2
Brachythecium rutabulum 3
Calliergonella cuspidata 2
Cardamine pratensis 2 1 2
Carex leporina 2 2
Carex nigra 3 4
Cerastium fontanum 3 1
Cirsium arvense 3 3 2
Cirsium palustre 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cynosurus cristatus 3 2
Deschampsia cespitosa cespitosa 1 1 3 4
Epilobium obscurum 3 2 2 2 2
Epilobium palustre 3 4 2
Festuca arundinacea 3
Festuca rubra 4 3
Galium palustre 2
Galium saxatile 3
Holcus lanatus 2 3 3 4 6 5 3
Hypochoeris radicata 3 2
Juncus acutiflorus 8
Juncus effusus 9 10 9 7 7 7
Juncus squarrosus 2
Kindbergia praelonga 3 3 3 2
Luzula multiflora 2
Myosotis secunda 1
Nardus stricta 3
Poa trivialis 2
Potentilla erecta 4 2 1
Prunella vulgaris 2 2
Ranunculus repens 2 3 4 3
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 3 3
Rubus fruticosus agg. 1
Rumex acetosa 2 4 3
Senecio jacobaea 1
Stellaria alsine 2 2 3 2
Urtica dioica 7 1
Valeriana officinalis 3
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 16

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Neutral Grassland
Quadrat ID 7 10 9
Likely NVC comm MG 6b MG 6b MG 9
Date 13/07/2017 13/07/2017 13/07/2017
Surveyor's name P EADES P EADES P EADES
Quadrat size 2x2 m 2x2 m 2x2 m
Photo ID HF7 HF10 HF9
Easting 426235 426307 426343
Northing 386066 385974 386035
Species-richness 20 23 16
Current species name Domin Domin Domin
Agrostis stolonifera 2 4 3
Anthoxanthum odoratum 4 5 4
Bellis perennis 1
Calliergonella cuspidata 3 3 2
Carex leporina 3
Carex nigra 5 5
Cerastium fontanum 2 2
Cirsium arvense 2 3 4
Cirsium palustre 2 2 2
Cynosurus cristatus 5 4 5
Deschampsia cespitosa cespitosa 3 3 3
Festuca rubra 3 3
Holcus lanatus 4 3
Hypochoeris radicata 3 2 3
Juncus effusus 2
Juncus squarrosus 5
Luzula campestris 3 3 3
Nardus stricta 2 3
Pilosella officinarum agg 1
Plantago lanceolata 2
Potentilla erecta 3 3
Prunella vulgaris 3 3 2
Ranunculus acris 2 2
Ranunculus repens 3 3 3
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 3 2
Rumex acetosa 2
Taraxacum seedlings 2
Trifolium repens 5 3
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 17

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Molinia Grassland
Quadrat ID 12 15 17
Likely NVC comm M 25b M25b M 25b
Date 13/07/2017 13/07/2017 13/07/2017
Surveyor's name P EADES P EADES P EADES
Quadrat size 4x4 m 4x4 m 4x4 m
Photo ID HF12 HF15 HF17
Easting 426406 426336 426365
Northing 385957 385903 385965
Species-richness 14 10 12
Current species name Domin Domin Domin
Agrostis stolonifera 3 5 3
Anthoxanthum odoratum 4 3 4
Calliergonella cuspidata 2
Calluna vulgaris 1
Carex panicea 5
Cirsium palustre 3 2 2
Festuca rubra 3
Galium saxatile 3
Holcus lanatus 4 3
Juncus effusus 4 4
Juncus squarrosus 4 4
Luzula multiflora 2 3
Molinia caerulea 7 2 3
Nardus stricta 2 6 5
Plagiomnium undulatum 1
Potentilla erecta 3 2 4
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 3 3
Rumex acetosa 1
Sphagnum denticulatum 3
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 18

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Acidic Fen and Typha Swamp
Quadrat ID 3 4 14 18
Likely NVC comm M 6b M 6b M6 b S12a
Date 13/07/2017 13/07/2017 13/07/2017 13/07/2017
Surveyor's name P EADES P EADES P EADES P EADES
pH 6.3
conductivity (micro-S / cm) 60
Quadrat size 2x2m 1x4 m 1x4 m stand
Photo ID HF3 HF4 HF14 HF18
Easting 426267 426268 426364 426349
Northing 385886 385882 385897 385915
Species-richness 16 12 13 1
Current species name Domin Domin Domin Domin
Agrostis stolonifera 4 3
Anthoxanthum odoratum 4 3 3
Calliergonella cuspidata 5
Cardamine pratensis 2
Carex echinata 3 5
Carex nigra 6 4 4
Cirsium palustre 3 2
Deschampsia flexuosa 1
Epilobium palustre 3 3
Eriophorum angustifolium 7
Festuca arundinacea 2
Festuca ovina 3
Holcus lanatus 2
Hypnum jutlandicum 3
Juncus articulatus 3
Juncus bulbosus 3
Juncus effusus 3 6 7
Juncus squarrosus 3
Luzula multiflora 3 3
Nardus stricta 4
Polytrichum commune 4
Potentilla erecta 4 3 2
Prunella vulgaris 2
Ranunculus flammula 4
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 2
Rumex acetosa 3
Sphagnum denticulatum 1
Sphagnum fallax 8
Typha latifolia 9
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 19

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
Acid Grassland
Quadrat ID 13
Likely NVC comm
U 5a
Date 13/07/2017
Surveyor's name
P EADES
Quadrat size
2x2 m
Photo ID
HF13
Easting 426374
Northing 385891
Species-richness 12
Current species name
Domin
Agrostis stolonifera 4
Anthoxanthum odoratum 5
Carex nigra 5
Deschampsia flexuosa 3
Festuca ovina 3
Galium saxatile 3
Luzula multiflora 3
Molinia caerulea 4
Nardus stricta 4
Potentilla erecta 4
Pseudoscleropodium purum 2
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus 3
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 20

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
8.3 Annex 3. Hammond’s Field Species List
Species name
DAFOR
Species name
DAFOR
Agrostis canina
Agrostis stolonifera
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Athyrium filix-femina
Bellis perennis
Brachythecium rivulare
Brachythecium rutabulum
Calliergonella cuspidata
Calluna vulgaris
Cardamine pratensis
Carex echinata
Carex leporina
Carex nigra
Carex panicea
Cerastium fontanum
Cirsium arvense
Cirsium palustre
Cynosurus cristatus
Deschampsia cespitosa
cespitosa
Deschampsia flexuosa
Epilobium obscurum
Epilobium palustre
Eriophorum angustifolium
Festuca arundinacea
Festuca ovina
Festuca rubra
Galium palustre
Galium saxatile
Holcus lanatus
Hypnum jutlandicum
Hypochoeris radicata
Juncus acutiflorus
Juncus articulatus
Juncus bulbosus
Juncus effusus
Juncus squarrosus
Kindbergia praelonga
Luzula campestris
Luzula multiflora
Molinia caerulea
Myosotis secunda
Nardus stricta
Pilosella officinarum agg
Plagiomnium undulatum
Plantago lanceolata
Poa trivialis
Polytrichum commune
Potentilla erecta
Prunella vulgaris
O
A
A
R
R
R
R
O
R
O
O
O
FLA
R
O
OLA
A
O
OLF
R
O
O
R
R
R
O
R
O
A
R
O
R
R
R
ALD
O
O
O
O
O
R
F
R
R
R
R
R
A
O
Pseudoscleropodium purum
Ranunculus acris
Ranunculus flammula
Ranunculus repens
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus
Rubus fruticosus agg.
Rumex acetosa
Senecio jacobaea
Sphagnum denticulatum
Sphagnum fallax
Stellaria alsine
Taraxacum seedlings
Trifolium repens
Typha latifolia
Urtica dioica
Valeriana officinalis
R
R
R
F
F
R
O
R
R
R
O
R
R
RLD
RLA
R
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 21

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
8.4 Annex 4. MATCH data
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 1
Community code co-efficient
M23 37.5 2 subcommunities.
M28 31.6 3 subcommunities.
MG10 31.1 3 subcommunities.
W 7 30.8 3 subcommunities.
OV27 29.0 5 subcommunities.
W 5 28.8 3 subcommunities.
M27 28.1 3 subcommunities.
MG 9 27.9 2 subcommunities.
W 6 27.6 4 subcommunities.
W 3 26.3 0 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M23b 40.9
M23 37.5
M27c 34.5
W 5c 33.1
MG10a 32.3
M28a 31.7
OV27b 31.6
M28 31.6
MG10 31.1
M28b 30.9
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 2
Community code co-efficient
MG10 35.5 3 subcommunities.
M23 32.8 2 subcommunities.
MG 9 30.4 2 subcommunities.
MG13 29.5 0 subcommunities.
M28 28.2 3 subcommunities.
S17 23.4 0 subcommunities.
OV32 22.9 0 subcommunities.
M27 22.8 3 subcommunities.
M32 21.1 2 subcommunities.
M35 20.5 0 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
MG10a 39.3
M23b 38.1
MG10 35.5
M23 32.8
M27c 32.0
MG 9a 30.6
MG 9 30.4
MG10b 30.3
MG10c 30.1
MG 9b 29.7
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 22

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 3
Community code co-efficient
U 5 38.4 5 subcommunities.
M 6 34.3 4 subcommunities.
U 4 33.8 5 subcommunities.
U 6 32.9 4 subcommunities.
M25 32.6 3 subcommunities.
M23 30.2 2 subcommunities.
U20 28.6 3 subcommunities.
U 2 27.4 2 subcommunities.
MG10 26.3 3 subcommunities.
U16 26.3 3 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
U 5a 40.8
U 5c 39.1
U 5b 38.8
M 6b 38.4
U 5 38.4
U 4d 37.0
U 5d 36.2
U 4e 35.8
U 6d 35.6
U 4a 35.4
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 4
Community code co-efficient
M 6 30.7 4 subcommunities.
M25 30.5 3 subcommunities.
M23 28.7 2 subcommunities.
M 4 26.6 0 subcommunities.
W 4 22.4 3 subcommunities.
M 8 22.0 0 subcommunities.
MG10 20.4 3 subcommunities.
M 5 19.8 0 subcommunities.
M26 19.4 2 subcommunities.
SD17 19.2 4 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M25c 33.8
M 6b 32.5
M 6d 32.1
M 6c 32.1
M 6 30.7
M23b 30.5
M25 30.5
M 6a 30.3
M25b 28.8
M23 28.7
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 23

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 5
Community code co-efficient
M23 35.5 2 subcommunities.
U 5 34.5 5 subcommunities.
M25 32.9 3 subcommunities.
SD17 31.5 4 subcommunities.
U 4 31.5 5 subcommunities.
U20 30.8 3 subcommunities.
M 6 30.0 4 subcommunities.
M26 29.1 2 subcommunities.
MG10 27.4 3 subcommunities.
MG 9 27.2 2 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M23a 38.0
M 6d 36.9
M23b 36.9
M25b 36.6
U 5c 35.9
U20a 35.9
U 4d 35.7
M23 35.5
U 5 34.5
M25c 33.1
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 6
Community code co-efficient
M23 34.6 2 subcommunities.
M27 30.5 3 subcommunities.
M28 24.8 3 subcommunities.
W 2 24.8 2 subcommunities.
W 1 24.1 0 subcommunities.
MG10 23.6 3 subcommunities.
OV27 23.3 5 subcommunities.
OV26 22.3 5 subcommunities.
W 6 21.6 4 subcommunities.
S26 21.4 4 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M27c 35.5
M23b 34.9
M23 34.6
M27 30.5
M28a 26.9
M27a 26.4
MG10a 25.6
OV27b 25.4
M23a 25.1
M28 24.8
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 24

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 7
Community code co-efficient
MG 8 48.7 0 subcommunities.
MG 6 44.7 3 subcommunities.
MG 9 41.7 2 subcommunities.
MG 4 40.6 0 subcommunities.
MG 5 40.6 3 subcommunities.
MG 3 37.8 2 subcommunities.
SD17 37.3 4 subcommunities.
MG10 36.0 3 subcommunities.
MC 9 33.3 5 subcommunities.
SD 8 33.1 5 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
MG 6b 51.0
MG 8 48.7
MG 6 44.7
MG 5c 43.8
MG 6a 43.2
MG 5a 41.8
MG 9 41.7
MG 9a 41.7
MG 4 40.6
MG 5 40.6
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 8
Community code co-efficient
MG10 43.7 3 subcommunities.
M23 40.6 2 subcommunities.
MG 9 35.3 2 subcommunities.
MG 8 34.0 0 subcommunities.
M28 33.7 3 subcommunities.
MG13 30.6 0 subcommunities.
MC 9 30.6 5 subcommunities.
M25 30.6 3 subcommunities.
SD17 29.2 4 subcommunities.
MC12 27.9 2 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
MG10a 46.5
MG10 43.7
M23b 43.5
M23 40.6
MG10b 38.7
M23a 38.2
M28a 37.1
MC 9e 36.1
MG10c 35.8
M25b 35.4
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 25

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 9
Community code co-efficient
MG 9 35.4 2 subcommunities.
MG 5 32.7 3 subcommunities.
SD17 31.9 4 subcommunities.
MG 8 31.4 0 subcommunities.
MC10 30.6 3 subcommunities.
CG10 30.1 3 subcommunities.
U 4 30.0 5 subcommunities.
MG 6 29.9 3 subcommunities.
MG 4 29.4 0 subcommunities.
MC 9 27.3 5 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
MG 5c 36.1
MG 9 35.4
SD17a 34.5
MG 9a 34.0
MG 5 32.7
MG 5a 32.3
MC10b 32.3
SD17 31.9
SD17c 31.7
MG 6b 31.6
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 10
Community code co-efficient
MG 8 41.0 0 subcommunities.
MG 6 39.9 3 subcommunities.
MG 5 36.9 3 subcommunities.
MG 4 36.8 0 subcommunities.
MG10 36.3 3 subcommunities.
MG 9 35.9 2 subcommunities.
MG 3 33.7 2 subcommunities.
M23 33.4 2 subcommunities.
U 4 33.1 5 subcommunities.
CG10 31.3 3 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
MG 6b 44.9
MG 5c 42.5
U 4b 41.1
MG 8 41.0
MG 6a 40.6
MG 6 39.9
MG 5a 38.9
MG10a 38.7
MG 9a 38.3
CG10a 37.0
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 26

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 11
Community code co-efficient
M23 37.5 2 subcommunities.
MG 9 37.5 2 subcommunities.
MG10 37.4 3 subcommunities.
MG 8 32.6 0 subcommunities.
MG 6 31.7 3 subcommunities.
M28 31.0 3 subcommunities.
MG13 28.3 0 subcommunities.
SD17 27.8 4 subcommunities.
M27 26.4 3 subcommunities.
MG 4 26.2 0 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M23b 43.3
MG10a 40.5
M23 37.5
MG 9 37.5
MG10 37.4
MG 9a 35.9
MG 6b 35.4
M27c 33.7
SD17c 33.2
M28a 33.1
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 12
Community code co-efficient
M25 37.2 3 subcommunities.
U 4 35.0 5 subcommunities.
M23 34.0 2 subcommunities.
U 5 33.8 5 subcommunities.
U20 30.5 3 subcommunities.
MG10 29.8 3 subcommunities.
MC 9 29.5 5 subcommunities.
MG 9 28.3 2 subcommunities.
M 6 27.9 4 subcommunities.
W23 27.4 3 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M25b 42.7
M25c 39.0
M25 37.2
U 4d 36.9
U 5c 36.7
U20a 36.0
U 4b 35.9
U 5d 35.7
M23a 35.6
U 4a 35.5
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 27

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 13
Community code co-efficient
U 5 47.0 5 subcommunities.
U20 42.7 3 subcommunities.
U 4 38.7 5 subcommunities.
U 3 36.0 0 subcommunities.
U 2 35.2 2 subcommunities.
U 6 35.0 4 subcommunities.
H18 33.8 3 subcommunities.
U16 32.3 3 subcommunities.
M25 31.7 3 subcommunities.
H10 30.9 4 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
U 5a 51.2
U 5d 48.3
U 5 47.0
U 5b 46.4
U20b 46.3
U 4e 46.1
U20a 44.7
U20 42.7
U 4a 41.8
U 5c 41.0
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 14
Community code co-efficient
M 6 36.4 4 subcommunities.
M23 34.8 2 subcommunities.
M29 32.9 0 subcommunities.
M 5 32.8 0 subcommunities.
M35 29.7 0 subcommunities.
SD17 28.8 4 subcommunities.
M 4 28.2 0 subcommunities.
M25 27.7 3 subcommunities.
M 8 26.6 0 subcommunities.
M32 25.8 2 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M 6b 39.1
M 6 36.4
M 6c 35.6
SD17d 35.1
M23 34.8
M23b 33.8
M 6a 33.2
M29 32.9
M 5 32.8
M23a 31.9
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 28

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 15
Community code co-efficient
M25 41.4 3 subcommunities.
H 4 36.6 4 subcommunities.
M15 34.7 4 subcommunities.
U 5 32.7 5 subcommunities.
M16 30.4 4 subcommunities.
H10 29.7 4 subcommunities.
M 6 29.6 4 subcommunities.
M23 27.9 2 subcommunities.
M17 27.6 3 subcommunities.
U 2 27.5 2 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M25b 41.8
M25 41.4
M25c 39.8
M15d 39.1
U 5d 38.5
M15c 38.2
H 4 36.6
U 5c 36.1
M15 34.7
H 4a 34.2
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 16
Community code co-efficient
MG 9 42.1 2 subcommunities.
MG 6 36.4 3 subcommunities.
MG10 35.8 3 subcommunities.
MG 8 33.9 0 subcommunities.
MG 5 32.8 3 subcommunities.
M23 32.5 2 subcommunities.
MG12 30.6 2 subcommunities.
U 4 30.1 5 subcommunities.
MG 4 29.6 0 subcommunities.
MC 9 27.9 5 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
MG 9 42.1
MG 6b 39.9
MG 9a 39.1
MG10a 38.7
MG 9b 37.8
MG 5c 37.0
U 4b 37.0
MG 6 36.4
MG10 35.8
MG12a 35.2
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 29

Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve Vegetation Survey 2018
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 17
Community code co-efficient
M25 38.9 3 subcommunities.
U 5 35.0 5 subcommunities.
M 6 32.1 4 subcommunities.
M24 30.7 3 subcommunities.
M26 30.0 2 subcommunities.
M23 28.9 2 subcommunities.
M15 27.9 4 subcommunities.
U 4 26.5 5 subcommunities.
M22 25.8 4 subcommunities.
H 4 25.5 4 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
M25b 41.0
U 5c 40.2
M25 38.9
M25c 37.2
M 6b 35.3
M 6d 35.0
U 5 35.0
U 5a 34.6
M23a 32.5
U 5d 32.5
The matching procedures have produced the following results for
sample 18
Community code co-efficient
S12 44.2 4 subcommunities.
S22 22.7 3 subcommunities.
S15 16.2 2 subcommunities.
S13 14.3 0 subcommunities.
S20 10.4 2 subcommunities.
S 3 10.0 0 subcommunities.
S 4 9.6 4 subcommunities.
S18 8.8 2 subcommunities.
S19 8.7 3 subcommunities.
S 8 7.9 3 subcommunities.
Matches against sub-communities.
Community code co-efficient
S12a 84.0
S12d 49.3
S12 44.2
S12b 33.4
S12c 31.2
S22 22.7
S22b 18.5
S15 16.2
S15b 15.7
S 4a 14.8
Dr Phil Eades, Consultant Ecologist 30

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
The Woodland Heart
Assessment of woodlands owned by Yorkshire Water, Sheffield City Council
and Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust

Summary
This report makes an assessment of woodlands within the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
area that are owned and managed by three key partners; Yorkshire Water (YW), Sheffield City
Council (SCC) and Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust (SRWT). The assessment seeks to identify
collaborative working opportunities between the principle woodland owners across the partnership
area.
The extent of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership is identified on the plan included as Plan
1 as supplied by SRWT.
This report considers specifically Outcome 2 of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership project
with the Heritage Lottery Fund : Bigger, better and more joined up natural environment for people
and wildlife Natural heritage projects that further the aims of ‘Making Space for Nature’, Lawton et
al.
The woodland heart: co-ordinating management of the woodlands across the landscape - bringing
Yorkshire Water, Sheffield City Council and other smaller private owners together – to improve the
woodland habitat for wildlife and people.
The synergies of management between the woodland owners are identified and discussed in section
1 of the report. Section two identifies compartments with limited commercial value and proposes
management that will provide long-term cultural benefits such as habitat improvement, landscape
protection and long term resilience.
The greatest opportunity for collaborative working is around the Rivelin Dams area where all three
partners have landholdings. There are also many limitations to management due to poor access and
infrastructure. These limitations have the potential to restrict management works in the future if
adequate resources are not in place to meet the additional costs associated with difficult access. This
would be to the long term detriment of the woodlands.
SCC and YW are both significant land owners around the Broomhead, Mole Hill, Dale Dike and Adgen
Reservoirs where collaborative working opportunities also exist. Around the remaining reservoirs
land ownership tends to be dominated by one partner. At Damflask, Strines, Underbank, Midhope
and Langsett Reservoirs YW is the principle land owner. At Redmires Reservoir SCC is the main land
owner. Collaborative working opportunities are therefore limited here. However, many of these
reservoirs are dominated by conifers and there are opportunities to improve their structure and
increase species diversity. This work will improve the biodiversity, landscape and recreational value
of these woodlands whilst making them more resilient to external threats such as pests and diseases
and climate change.
Section 3 identifies woodlands within the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape area where resilience could
be improved to protect against genus and species specific pests and diseases. Some of the woodland
areas heavily dominated by a small number of conifer species such as around Langsett, Underbank
and Strines Reservoirs may be vulnerable to pest and disease outbreaks without increased
diversification of species.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 2 of 58

Section 4 identifies broad planting opportunities that might create connectivity between woodlands
and compliment flood protection measures.
Section 5 identifies Forestry Stewardship Grant opportunities for the partnership area and Section 6
identifies other woodland owners in the partnership area who may have an interest in being
included in the partnership. Around Strines Reservoir the Fitzwilliam Wentworth Estate owns
significant woodland and has expressed an interest in partnership working. The estate has confirmed
that current management plans are in place for the woodlands in the area.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 3 of 58

Contents
Section 1. Potential synergy of operations between partners. 6
Identify forestry compartments in the project area due for management by SCC and YW over
the period of the project and identify potential synergy of forestry operations and joint
working to realise mutual benefits, e.g. extraction, water management, economies of scale,
access, stakeholder engagement, media communications, landscape design, biodiversity
gains etc.
Section 2 Woodland compartments with limited commercial value 21
Identify SCC and YW forestry compartments which have limited commercial value (taking
into account the cost and constraints of extraction, markets etc). Map and target them for
management, with the view to creating options for long term retention and achieving the
none-financial benefits that can be accrued from woodlands and the identification or
suitability for Forest/Woodland Creation Grants under Countryside Stewardship.
Section 3 Long-term resilience management options for the woodlands 31
Identify options for long-term 'resilience' management techniques with a view to increasing
diversity, the core to woodland adaptation, ensuring resilience in the future. To be achieved
through managing the woodland structure, age structure and species range, in light of
anticipated future threats and diseases.
Section 4 Planting opportunities for water management and woodland buffering 36
Map overall tree planting 'opportunity' at a broad level and propose areas for buffering and
/ connectivity to support the aspirations detailed in the report ‘Making Space for Nature -
The Lawton Report (2010) (England)’, and to compliment opportunities for Natural Flood
Management together with the identification or suitability for Forest/Woodland Creation
Grants under Countryside Stewardship. Working closely with the Protecting Sheffield project
team and Environment Agency.
Section 5 Forest Stewardship 38
Clarify with the Forestry Commission the necessity or requirement to update Sheffield City
Councils existing Peak Forest Design Plan and the process for submitting it onto the new
Management Plan template for Countryside Stewardship.
Section 6 Opportunities to engage other woodland owners in the area 40
Explore the potential opportunities to engage other woodland owner/managers in the area
in a cohesive approach to woodland and forest management in particular the Fitzwilliam
Estates.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 4 of 58

Tables
Table 1 Collaborative Working Opportunities 41
Table 2 Proposed management and associated costs 43
Table 3 Cost and benefit analysis for each partner 48
Plans
Plan 1 Langsett, Midhope and Underbank Reservoirs 53
Plan 2 Broomhead and Moor Hall Reservoirs 54
Plan 3 Strines, Agden, Dale Dike and Dam Flask Reservoirs 55
Plan 4 Rivelin Dams and Redmires Reservoirs 56
Bibliography 57
Appendix 1 Maps examined for preparation of this report 58
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 5 of 58

Section 1. Potential synergy of operations between partners.
The principle land owning partners are Sheffield City Council, (SCC) Yorkshire Water (YW)
and Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust (SRWT). All three partners have management
plans in place with woodland management proposed over the duration of the project until
2022 and beyond.
SCC and YW’s woodland holdings are all included in long term management plans approved
by Forestry Commission. SRWT’s, Wyming Brook and Fox Hagg have detailed management
plans as well as a Forestry Commission approved plan. Carr House Meadows has a detailed
management plan whilst Agden Bog and Hammond’s Field Nature Reserve have got brief
management statements.
Langsett, Midhope and Underbank Reservoirs
There are no collaborative working opportunities between the partners in the Langsett,
Underbank or Midhope Reservoir areas. Yorkshire Water is the only landowner around these
reservoirs.
These reservoirs are managed on a commercial basis, particularly Langsett and Midhope.
The majority of the planting at all three is mixed conifer species. All three have reasonably to
good access and infrastructure for thinning and felling operations with good tracks and
stacking areas serving much of the woodland areas. It would be reasonable that YW would
continue to manage those woodland compartments with good access on a commercial basis.
SWAT analysis
Strengths
• YW has valuable commercial conifer stands
around these reservoirs.
• Access is good to most areas of the
commercial planting.
• Most of the commercial stands are close to
the highway network with good stacking
areas.
•Langsett Reservoir is within the Peak
District National Park (PDNP)
Opportunities
• To undertake some restructuring and
species diversification works to improve
resilliance.
• Establish mixed broadleaved woodland
areas close to the edges of reservoirs for
water quality.
• Establish irregular, mixed broadleaved
woodland margins along prominent edges.
Weaknesses
• YW is the only landholding partner around
these reservoirs.
Threats
• Possible adverse effect on water quality
from conifer plantation close to the water.
• Large reliance of conifer species, including
single species stands. Pests and diseases
(eg P. ramorum, pine beetle, red band
needle blight)
• Large area of dense Himalayan balsam at
the head of Underbank Reservoir.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 6 of 58

Broomhead Reservoir
The Yorkshire Water (YW) and Sheffield City Council (SCC) both own considerable areas of
woodland around Broomhead Reservoir. All of the woodland compartments are included in
forest design plans and most have been identified for management during the period of this
programme and in years immediately after. This work includes thinning proposals by YW in
compartments 138a, 139a, 141a and 181a and felling by SCC in compartments 15 in 2018,
14a-d in 2020 and 02d in 2021 and thinning in 04b in 2020, 08c in 2024, 02 and 03 in 2025
and 2026 and 08e in 2026.
YW’s compartment 181a1 and SCC’s compartment 08d are the same piece of land.
SCC proposes, in the long term, to continue to manage the woodlands in this area on a
commercial basis dominated by commercial conifer species (D Aspinall 2017, personal
communication, 31 August).
Woodland to the north of Broomhead Reservoir
There is a small car park on the corner of Yewtrees Lane on the northern edge of YW’s
compartment 141a 11. This appears to be the access point, and possibly stacking area that
would be used for proposed thinning operations over the next ten years in compartments
141a, 141a2, 141a3 and 141a5 to 141a11. This is an extensive management area for such a
small stacking and loading area. There may be an opportunity to increase the size of the area
available for staking immediately to the east of the existing car parking area. The land falls
away slightly at this point but with some investment it could create an opportunity for
increased stacking and loading.
The compartment on the north side of Yewtrees Lane opposite the car park (SCC 08c) is
programmed for thinning in 2024. This is mixed broadleaved woodland and thinning is likely
to involve low intensity thinning. There are no stacking or loading opportunities for this work
on the north side of the Yewtrees Lane. Therefore, an improved stacking area around the
existing car park would support management of compartments 08c and 08d. This
investment would benefit both SCC and YW.
Photograph 1. Opportunity to extend stacking area on Yewtrees Lane.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 7 of 58

There is a footpath that runs parallel to the northern edge of the reservoir. This is a main
access route around the reservoir for walkers but is narrow and quite uneven for the most
part. It does not provide a good access route for management and there is a narrow and
weak stream crossing point in the narrow linear part of compartment 141a8. There are some
long extraction routes from 141a2, 141a5 and 141a7 to the main access point for
management. Upgrading of this path, including improvements to the stream crossing would
assist with management of these compartments.
Photograph 2. Narrow watercourse crowing at Broomhead Reservoir
Woodland to the south of Broomhead Reservoir
Significant areas of Sheffield City Council’s woodland compartments to the south of the
reservoir are proposed for management within the project period. This includes felling 15a,
15b and 15d in 2018 and 14a to 14d and 14g in 2021. To the north of New Road Yorkshire
Water propose to thin the narrow woodland areas between the road and the reservoir
(138a1 and 139a2 – 4)
There is good access and a stacking area in compartment 14g. However, this would involve a
long extraction route for timber from 14a. These are compartments with large quantities of
timber to be felled. Creating a second stacking and loading area on the edge of 14a to the
east of Mill Lane would create shorter extraction routes. This would limit damage to the
woodland soils, important in complying with the UK Forestry Standard. It would also allow
Yorkshire Water to stack arisings from thinning of compartments 139a2 and 4. There is
limited opportunity to stack in these compartments due to the narrow nature of the road
but stacking across the road would be advantageous to the thinning of these compartments.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust (SRWT) currently don’t own land holdings around the
reservoir.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 8 of 58

SWAT analysis
Strengths
• YW and SCC both have management
identified within the next 10 years.
• Both owners have valuable timber for
thinning and felling.
• Diverse range of species throughout the
compartments, both conifer and
broadleaves.
• Veteran trees present.
• Red Databook/BAP species in woodlands
to the south of the reservoir.
• Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW)
around this reservoir.
• Within PDNP.
• Much of the woodland is included in Peak
Park Wildlife Sites.
Opportunities
• There is an opportunity for the landowners
to share infrastructure such as stacking and
loading areas.
• SCC compartments have been or will be
felled creating an opportunity to restock
with desired species to improve diversity.
• Watercourses running through woodland
feed the reservoir.
• Wetland habitats present in the area.
Weaknesses
• There appears to be a lack of stacking areas
available for some management works in
some compartments.
• The highway network in the area is
restrictive.
• There are some challenging slopes to work
from.
• Compartments 3 and 15 (SCC) have wet
areas making access difficult.
Threats
• Possible adverse effect on water quality
from inappropriate management.
• Pests and diseases (eg P. ramorum, pine
beetle, red band needle blight).
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 9 of 58

Mole Hall Reservoir
Three partners; YW, SCC and SRWT all manage woodland around Mole Hall Reservoir, and
predominantly on the south side. Again management is proposed within the period of this
programme.
Yorkshire Water’s compartments 140a1 and 142a2 are both proposed for thinning within a
ten year period from now. Both are small areas but compartment 140a1 has some valuable
timber. Neither has a stacking area at the side of Jack Lane. A small stacking and loading area
on the corner of Jack Lane would provide an opportunity to complete the thinning. It may
also create an opportunity to manage Sheffield City Council’s 12a which has been identified
for continuous cover forestry.
SCC’s compartment 11 is steeply sloping for the most part and extraction to roadside in subcompartment
11c is challenging. The road network is narrow with sharp bends and there is
no opportunity to stack timber at the roadside. Timber must be stacked across the road at a
point around 100 metres away. This stacking area is however quite limited in size. There are
opportunities to increase the size of this stacking area to accommodate timber from
management of compartment 11.
SRWT manage one site; Carr House Meadows, to the south of the other land holdings. The
low intervention management proposals identified for the site in the management plan
mean that there is little opportunity for synergy of management with the other partners at
present.
SWAT analysis
Strengths
• YW and SCC both have management
identified within the next 10 years, though
YW’s proposals are more limited.
• Both owners have valuable timber for
thinning and felling.
• Diverse range of species throughout the
compartments, both conifer and
broadleaves.
• Compartment 9 to the south is a SCC local
nature reserve.
• Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW)
• Veteran trees present.
Opportunities
• There is an opportunity for the landowners
to share infrastructure such as stacking and
loading areas.
• Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW)
around this reservoir.
• Watercourses running through woodland
feed the reservoir.
Weaknesses
• There are a lack of opportunities for
stacking available for some management
works in some compartments.
• The highway network in the area is very
restrictive.
• There are some very challenging slopes to
work from.
Threats
• Possible adverse effect on water quality
from inappropriate management.
• Pests and diseases (eg P. ramorum, pine
beetle, red band needle blight).
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 10 of 58

Agden Reservoir
Again three of the main land owners in the area; YW, SCC and SRWT all manage woodland
around Agden Reservoir. Much of the management proposed by YW and SCC is proposed for
completion by, or soon after 2022.
SRWT owns and manages Adgen Bog Nature Reserve. There is little opportunity for
woodland management work in the reserve because the reserve is primarily bog and
heathland habitats. There are some woodland margins but any management of these areas
is likely to be minimal, low intervention management.
Significant areas of the SCC managed woodland is proposed for felling by 2021 with further
areas to be thinned by 2026. These compartments are in close proximity to, and adjoining,
compartments managed by YW. These are identified for thinning by 2027. There is however
little opportunity for synergy of management between the two owners due to the positions
of the compartments relative to each other. A large area of SCC’s land holding are on the
northeast side of the reservoir whereas most of YW’s is to the south and west.
Whilst SCC’s cmp 21 and YW’s 146a2 do adjoin and are serviced by a good quality track the
land falls very sharply down to the reservoir with a well maintained boundary wall on the
north side of the track. The wall, together with the track, forms the boundaries to the
respective compartments. This wall runs along the length of the track from close to the top
of the slope with the highway down to the bottom of the slope. A combination of the wall
and the steep slopes will make management challenging but this area creates the best
opportunity for collaborative working between the two owners and also presents an
opportunity for some much needed management.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 11 of 58

SWAT analysis
Strengths
• YW, SCC and SWT all have land holdings in
the area.
• YW and SCC have identified management
within the next 10 years, though YW’s
proposals are more limited.
• Within PDNP.
• Habitats of notable species or subject to
HAPs.
• Peak Park key Wildlife Sites.
• Both have valuable timber for thinning.
• Diverse range of tree species throughout
the compartments, both conifer and
broadleaves.
• Good access route from Windy Bank
between SCC’s cmpt 21 and YW’s 146.
• Around 15 Red Data book Species have
been recorded in the woodlands.
• Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW)
around this reservoir.
Opportunities
• There are some PAWS around the reservoir
that would benefit from restoration.
• There is an opportunity for the landowners
to share infrastructure such as stacking and
loading areas.
• Restructuring of compartment boundaries
and age classes for landscape
enhancement.
• Restructure the conifer woodland in Cmp
146 to broadleaves to improve habitat and
water quality.
• Improve the structure of the woodlands to
enhance biodiversity value.
• The local topography around this reservoir
in particular gives the woodlands high
landscape value.
• Watercourses feed the reservoir.
• Veteran trees present.
Weaknesses
• There are a lack of opportunities for
stacking available for some management
works in some compartments, particularly
YW’s 146a2 and 146a4 and SCC’s 21a.
• There are some very challenging slopes to
work from particularly YW’s 146a2 and
146a4 and SCC’s 21a, c and e.
• Limited management plan in place for
Adgen Bog.
Threats
• Possible adverse effect on water quality
from inappropriate management.
• Pests and diseases (eg P. ramorum, pine
beetle, red band needle blight)
• Significant areas of Plantation on Ancient
Woodland Sites (ASNW) around this
reservoir.
• Cmps 21 and 146a2 and 4 are quite very
even aged.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 12 of 58

Dale Dike Reservoir
YW and SCC both manage woodland around this reservoir. SCC plan to undertake
considerable felling operations within the programme period. YW’s management operations
in this area are less significant with only small areas proposed for thinning. Other areas fall
outside their current management plan period and some areas are identified for long term
retention management.
There is not a great deal of opportunity for synergy between the two main partners around
Dale Dike. SSC’s land holding is predominantly to the south of the reservoir and YW’s to the
east and west. Of the two compartments that do adjoin (YW’s 149a9 and SCC’s 25a) there is
no opportunity to collaborate here because there is a substantial and very well maintained
drystone boundary wall between the two compartments. Furthermore, 25a is steep and very
wet so there would be no advantage in YW trying to extract through SCC’s 25a and there is a
long extraction route out of YW’s land that is of no benefit to SCC.
SCC’s compartment 26a is planted with commercial conifer species. Section 2 below
discusses opportunities to improve the landscape and ecological value of the compartment
by establishing broadleaved woodland margins and riparian margins whilst retaining the
majority of the commercial stand. However, to make the timber production viable an
improved stacking and loading area will be necessary. Also, the highway network is very
narrow and restrictive in this area. Access is only possible from the west off Sugworth Road
because the bends in the road from Bradfield are too tight. The highway is also too narrow
to allow loading from the highway. A properly constructed stacking, loading and turning area
in compartment 26b would make timber harvesting possible. It would however need to be a
large area to allow vehicles to access from the very narrow road and turn. Even then access
by longer articulated vehicles is unlikely to be possible.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 13 of 58

SWAT analysis
Strengths
• YW and SCC both have management
identified within the next 10 years, though
YW’s proposals are more limited.
• Both owners have valuable timber for
thinning and felling.
• Reasonably diverse range of species
throughout most of the compartments,
both conifer and broadleaves.
• Within PDNP.
• Peak Park key wildlife sites.
Opportunities
• To improve some of the planting in some
of YW’s long term retention areas on the
edge of the reservoir.
• A large area of SCC’s rural estate lies to the
south creating possible opportunities for
woodland creation.
• Watercourses feed the reservoir.
Weaknesses
• There is a lack of opportunities for stacking
available for some management works in
some compartments.
• The highway network in the area is very
restrictive.
• There are some very challenging slopes to
work from.
• Soils are heavy clay and very wet making
access/extraction difficult.
• Poor access onto the highway/lack of
loading facilities off of the highway from
SCC’s Cmp 26.
• Long extraction routes from YW’s Cmp
149a9.
• There is limited opportunity for partners to
share facilities due to separation by
landform and boundary walls.
Threats
• Possible adverse effect on water quality
from inappropriate management.
• Pests and diseases (eg P. ramorum, pine
beetle, red band needle blight).
• Lack of species diversity in some cmps (24a
and 26a.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 14 of 58

Damflask Reservoir
YW is the significant land owner from within the partnership. Many of the woodland
compartments are proposed to be managed by thinning within the next ten years.
SCC only manages two small areas of woodland around the reservoir. SCC’s woodlands in
this area are ASNW on steep slopes (compartment 29a) that require only very low
intervention management.
SRWT have no landholdings around the reservoir.
There are few opportunities for synergy of management between the partners.
Some of the compartments owned by YW have some of the most valuable timber around
the reservoir. This is in compartments 155a4 and 155a5, comprising of mixed conifer
species. Thinning and extraction from YW’s compartment 155a4 would be challenging given
the steep slopes and the lack of direct access to the highway. Compartment 155a5 is
relatively well connected to the highway on New Road but compartment 155a4 has no
connection to the highway because the neighbouring land to the north is in third party
ownership and Ughill Pond and Brook prevents vehicle access from the south.
Photograph 3. Pedestrian only crossing point over Ughill Brook at Damflask Reservoir
The options available to allow thinning of compartment 155a4 are either agreement with
the neighbouring land owner to the north for access over the field to Oaks Lane or create
suitable vehicular access over Ughill Brook to allow access onto New Road. There is currently
a pedestrian crossing to the west of Ughill Pond. This is a wooden structure built on old
stone supports. There may be potential here to construct a crossing that would support
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 15 of 58

vehicles for thinning operations, however the cost of this infrastructure would be
disproportionately high to the size of the woodland area that would benefit from
management works. It would therefore be more cost effective to try to agree access over
the neighbouring field to the north and onto Oaks Lane. The compartment is steep and
extraction to the field is likely to be costly.
SWAT analysis
Strengths
• YW has valuable timber for thinning and
felling.
• Within PDNP.
• Peak Park key wildlife sites.
• Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW)
around this reservoir.
Opportunities
•Improve diversity in areas currently
dominated by conifer plantation.
• Explore opportunities to formally agree
access with third party land owners for
management. E.g extraction from 155a4.
• Watercourses feed the reservoir.
Weaknesses
•Two partners; YW and SCC have
landholdings in the area but SCC
landholdings are limited and only low
intervention management is required.
•Direct access to the highway from some
sub-compartments is not possible (155a4).
• Limited stacking areas close to the highway
in some area.
• Access through compartments involves
steep slopes.
• Some areas are landlocked from the public
highway by land in third party ownership.
Threats
• Possible adverse effect on water quality
from inappropriate management.
• Pests and diseases (eg P. ramorum, pine
beetle, red band needle blight).
•Reduced biodiversity value in some conifer
plantation areas.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 16 of 58

Strines Reservoir
YW is the principle land owner within the Strines area. Management here includes thinning
operations within a 10 year period from 2017 as well as some areas of long term retention.
SCC Parks and Countryside Services do not currently manage landholdings in the Strines
Reservoir area. SCC Rural Estates manage a large area of land to the south and east of the
reservoir.
Fitzwilliam Wentworth Estate is a significant land owner in the Strines Reservoir area and is
potentially another partner in the programme. This may provide opportunities for
collaborative working with YW.
SRWT does not have any management interest in the area.
Collaborative working opportunities around Strines are quite narrow in scope and limited to
possible opportunities between YW and Fitzwilliam Wentworth Estate.
SWAT analysis
Strengths
• Good access to some woodlands from the
public highway.
• Adequate opportunity for stacking.
• Valuable timber for thinning and felling.
• Within PDNP.
Opportunities
• To improve species diversity to some of
YW’s long term retention areas on the edge
of the reservoir.
• To diversify some of YW’s conifer stands.
• A large area of SCC’s rural estate lies to the
south creating possible opportunities for
woodland creation.
• Watercourses feed the reservoir.
Weaknesses
• Little opportunity for collaborative working
between partners.
• Species composition mostly coniferous.
Threats
• Possible adverse effect on water quality
from inappropriate management.
• Pests and diseases (eg P. ramorum, pine
beetle, red band needle blight).
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 17 of 58

Rivelin Dams
Three key landowners manage large areas of woodland in the Rivelin Dams area between
them. The two most significant are YW and SRWT. SCC’s Parks and Countryside Service has a
small land holding in the area. Nevertheless, all three partners propose woodland
management during the project period. YW propose thinning of large areas, SRWT propose
significant management to restructure woodland for biodiversity gain and SCC propose
thinning and restructuring work in the two compartments they are responsible for.
There are a number of restrictions to management of the woodlands created by limited
access, steep slopes, inadequate water crossings at some points and poor or no access onto
the public highway in areas. Some compartments are land locked by land in third party
ownership. There are also plantations on ancient woodland sites (PAWS) in areas.
The combination of all three woodland owners identifying management operations, but with
challenges to management that can be partly overcome by collaborative working, and
positive environmental gain from management, create some of the best opportunities for
woodland improvement for the three main partners within the Sheffield Lakelands area.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 18 of 58

SWAT analysis
Strengths
•Three partners; YW, SRWT and SCC have
landholdings in the area, albeit that SCC
landholdings are limited.
• The area is included in the South Pennines
Special Protection Area (SPA) and
designated a special conservation area
(SCA).
• Within PDNP.
• Eastern Peak District Moors SSSI
• There is some valuable timber available for
felling.
• There is a reasonably diverse range of
species throughout the compartments,
both conifer and broadleaves across land
holdings.
• The woodlands are all included in
management plans of the respective
owners with considerable amounts of work
proposed.
Opportunities
•There are PAWS in the area.
• There is an opportunity for the landowners
to share infrastructure that has been
upgraded to access compartments.
•Improve diversity in identified areas
currently dominated by conifer plantation.
• Explore opportunities to formally agree
access with third party land owners for
management.
• Collaboration with felling work may make
operations more attractive to contractors
and merchants.
Weaknesses
• There is a lack of opportunities for stacking
available for some management works in
some compartments.
• Access off of the highway (A57) is very
restrictive.
• The public highway is very fast moving and
busy.
• Access through compartments involves
water crossings. Some are inadequate for
management because they are narrow and
weak.
• Some areas are landlocked from the public
highway by land in third party ownership
and watercourses.
• Long extraction routes to highways.
Threats
• Possible adverse effect on water quality
from inappropriate management.
• Pests and diseases (eg P. ramorum, pine
beetle, red band needle blight).
•Reduced biodiversity value in some conifer
plantation areas, particularly along water
courses and reservoir edge.
• Reduction in quality of ancient woodland
and PAWS due to lack of management
because operations are logistically difficult
and therefore expensive.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 19 of 58

Redmires Reservoir
YW and SCC are the principle woodland owners around this reservoir. Whilst SCC propose
some thinning works in 2021 and 2026 the areas of woodland owned by YW are being
managed as long term retention. SCC’s management is likely to be limited in compartments
54 to 57 because there has been significant windblow events to the west of the upper
reservoir in recent years dictating where management of the compartments should be
focused.
Furthermore, the landholdings of the respective woodland owners are quite separate. YW’s
landholdings are confined to quite defined areas to the north of the lowest reservoir around
Redmires Water Works with two smaller areas to the north of the middle reservoir.
SCC’s land holdings are largely to the north and west of the upper reservoir with another
standalone compartment (53) to the east of the water works.
For these reasons there are few options for synergy of management around the Redmires
Reservoirs.
SWAT analysis
Strengths
• Two partners; YW, SRWT and SCC have
landholdings in the area.
• The area is included in the South Pennines
Special Protection Area (SPA) and
designated a special conservation area
(SCA).
• Within PDNP
• Peak District Key Wildlife sites.
• There is a diverse range of species
throughout the compartments, both
conifer and broadleaves.
• There are adequate opportunities for
stacking of timber.
• The public highway network is good and
access to stacking areas is good.
Opportunities
• Areas of open space within YW land
holding that may be suitable for new
planting.
• Protection of the archaeology in Redmires
Camp (Cmp 53) with felling works on the
monuments.
• To review species diversity in the
replanting of the large windblow areas.
• To consider the impact of woodland
creation on the landscape in the future.
• Creation of wind firm edges during part of
planting design.
Weaknesses
• Lower quality timber in many of the
plantations.
• There is limited synergy between the
partners due to limited management
proposals by some partners and the land
holdings being in quite defined areas
remote from each other.
• Reduced planting opportunity in the areas
of archaeological interest.
Threats
• Possible adverse effect on water quality
from inappropriate management.
• Pests and diseases (eg P. ramorum and
pine beetle).
• Windblow is a difficulty in the area with
significant windblow events in the last two
years altering SCC’s design plan.
• There is a travellers’ site on the edge if
SCC’s compartment 53 with some dumping
in the woodland.
• Compartment 55 (SCC) has wet areas
making access difficult.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 20 of 58

Section 2 Woodland compartments with limited commercial value
Langsett, Midhope and Underbank Reservoirs
As discussed in section 1 above some compartments have good infrastructure and
connectivity to the highway network. Given the infrastructure, predominance of conifer
stands, and good connectivity to tracks that serve the highway, such as compartments 133
at Midhope and 131 at Langsett, it would be reasonable to continue with commercial
coniferous management in these areas. However, a telephone discussion on 7 November
2017 with G Lomas, recreation manager at Yorkshire Water confirmed the importance of
increasing diversity of species to improve resilience of the woodlands in this area.
There are a number of compartments at Midhope that are single conifer species. A lot of the
conifer blocks have regular, straight edges that are very prominent from the public highway;
compartments 131a6 from Midhope Cliffe Lane and compartments 129a13, 129a15, 129a19
129a34 from A616 at Langsett. Many of the compartments at Midhope are very prominent
from the surrounding road network.
There are opportunities to convert some of the conifer plantations at Midhope and
Underbank to broadleaves to increase biodiversity around the reservoirs. Suggested are
compartments 132a4 (4.63 hectares of Scots pine), 135a5 (1.07 hectares of larch), 133a4
(2.87 hectares of Sitka spruce and Scots pine mix) and 133a16 (0.51 hectares of lodgepole
pine) at Midhope. These are compartments at the north western end of the Midhope
landholding. The woodlands to the southeast and also dominated by conifers but
maintaining this area as conifer maintains connectivity of conifer planting where there is
good access to the public highway on Mortimer Road.
The southern woodland edge at Midhope Reservoir adjoining Gill Royd Lane (compartments
133a11 133a14 and 133a15) has a broadleaved boundary that is programmed for thinning.
This is an open boundary that leaves the interior of the woodland exposed and cold. Cold
woodlands are unattractive to many invertebrate and bird species. Establishment of native
shrubs such as hazel, hawthorn, elder and guelder rose along this broadleaved woodland
strip would develop a shrub layer providing some additional shelter to the woodland and
added habitat value.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 21 of 58

Photograph 4 Cold, exposed woodland edge next to Gill Royd Lane at Midhope Reservoir
Underbank Reservoir has more amenity/recreational value than the other two reservoirs on
the Little Don water course, particularly Midhope. The woodland edge on the north and
south sides of the A616 is predominantly broadleaved woodland and much of it has been
identified for long term retention, including all of the woodland on the north side of the
A616. Parts of this woodland are dominated by beech, but with a reasonable range of age
classes. There are some very dark areas where the beech has been unmanaged. In these
areas some continuous cover woodland management in the form of small group felling,
limited selective thinning and creation of standing deadwood would help to introduce some
young trees and improve the shrub and field layers. A similar approach within the narrow
compartments on the southern side of the A616 in the broadleaved compartments (135a3
and 135a6) would have similar benefits. Some large beech have been felled or have their
crowns removed recently within 135a3 creating some large gaps in the canopy creating
opportunities for establishment of a variety of broadleaved trees and shrubs. Natural
regeneration is likely to establish but planting would ensure the desired range of species ws
established.
Photograph 5. Gap in canopy of compartment 135a3 created by removing the crown from a
mature beech.
On the south side of Underbank there are a number of compartments with single and mixed
conifer species dominating with only a small element of broadleaves. There are however
occasional large individual broadleaved trees throughout. Conversion of some of the conifer
planting to mixed broadleaves whilst retaining an element of the conifer would increase the
species diversity of the area as well as improving biodiversity. Suggested compartments for
conversion are 136a12, 136a13, 136a14, and 136a15. The broadleaved compartment
(136a11) will act as a natural break for felling break. Also, the large, mature individual
broadleaved trees are growing in these compartments and will benefit.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 22 of 58

Also suggested for conversion are compartments 136a5, 136a7 and 136a8 to the west of the
car park and outdoor centre.
There is a water course that runs into Underbank Reservoir on the eastern edge of
compartments 136a7 and 136a8. Whilst there are currently some broadleaves on the edge
of the water course, including alder and oak the broadleaved element in the riparian area is
limited. Converting these compartments to mixed broadleaves would improve the edge of
the water course.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 23 of 58

Broomhead and Moor Hall Reservoirs
SCC has indicated a desire to retain predominantly conifer species and commercial
management around Broomhead Reservoir in the interests of maintaining the commercial
element of the council’s estate. This is a perfectly reasonable management objective but
there are nevertheless opportunities to improve the conifer stands for wildlife habitat, to
enhance their landscape and recreational value and improve water quality.
Around Moor Hall SCC proposes to change the management emphasis of some woodlands
from commercial conifer plantation to broadleaved woodland.
A number of small water courses serving the reservoirs have broadleaved woodland along
the riparian margins such as Rayon Clough and Canyards Brook. However, a number
continue to be dominated by conifer such as Lee Lane Dike that runs along the boundary of
SCC’s compartments 3 and 4, Allas Lane Dike that serves Broomhead Reservoir and the
watercourse in the centre of compartment 9 that serves Moor Hall Reservoir. These could be
significantly enhanced by converting the riparian strips from conifer species to broadleaves.
A 15 to 20m wide broadleaved planting would be advantageous to biodiversity and water
quality. This is an operation that would be supported by Countryside Stewardship Grant.
The large compartments owned by SCC to the south of the reservoirs (compartments 2, 4, 6,
12, 13, 14 and 15) have a network of narrow public highways throughout, particularly New
Road running in an east to west direction and Dwarriden Lane from north to south between
compartments 14 and 15. The plantations are planted up to the highway edge in many cases
with a closed canopy over the highway. Restructuring of a 20m wide margin along the
woodland boundary with the highway could achieve a graded woodland edge with a grassy
then shrubby margin grading into small growing broadleaved tree species before the conifer
crop behind. This would result in loss of a very small proportion of the productive area but it
would increase greatly the biodiversity value of the woodland margins as well as enhancing
the amenity of the woodland from the road. A broadleaved woodland margin managed as
continuous cover woodland would also minimise the impact of future management of the
conifer stands from the highway. This would increase options for clearfelling of conifers in
the future without impacting on the landscape. Again these operations would attract
Countryside Stewardship Grant.
Given the challenging nature of the topography of SCC’s compartment 11, the limited
opportunity for stacking in the compartment and the narrow road with sharp bends to gain
access to the stacking area it would be worth considering converting much of this
compartment to native broadleaves creating a woodland with mixed species, and a varied
structure with scalloped woodland edges. This would increase significantly the biodiversity
and landscape value and is therefore likely to attract Countryside Stewardship Grants.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 24 of 58

Agden Reservoir
SCC’s compartment 21, Windy Bank Wood, is very steep and narrow next to the public
highway. Some management will become necessary on the edge of the highway in time and
management would be beneficial to improve the structure of the woodland. It is very dark
with a limited understory, shrub or field layer. Management operations here would be costly
due to the small scale nature of the work, the steep slopes and the constraints of the
highway. However, there is an opportunity here to improve the structural and species
diversity of the compartment as well as the volumes of standing and fallen deadwood and
improve the age class of the trees and develop the field and shrub layers. This could be
achieved by creating small felling coups.
YW’s compartment 146a2 is on the same steep slope as SCC’s 21. The access track is on the
top side of the slope and bounded by a well maintained boundary wall. A combination of the
boundary wall and the very steep slope would make extraction of timber difficult. The stand
comprises a 50:50 mix of conifers and broadleaves. The shrub and field layers below the tree
canopy is very underdeveloped. Because the compartment is on the edge of the reservoir it
may be beneficial to convert the compartment to predominantly broadleaves with a greater
range of ages and structural variability, including better developed shrub and field layers.
The changes could have a positive impact on water quality and certainly result
improvements to biodiversity.
There are quite significant areas of ASNW (SCC compartment 19) and PAWS (SCC
compartment 19, 21 and 22) around the northern side of the reservoir managed by SCC.
Restoration of the PAWS areas to native broadleaved woodland would be in accordance
with best practice, helping to protect any remaining remnant features of ancient semi
natural woodland. Compartment 19 is steep and has proved challenging for extraction.
There are also limited opportunities to stack large quantities of timber on the edge of the
highway.
Countryside Stewardship Grant is likely to support all of these operations because it involves
restoration of PAWS and there would be considerable biodiversity gain.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 25 of 58

Dale Dike Reservoir
SCC’s compartment 26a is a densely spaced, regularly shaped block of even aged conifer
planting. Retaining the woodland as commercial conifer plantation would be reasonable
aspiration, particularly given that other woodland around Agden Reservoir have been
identified for conversion to native broadleaved woodland. Furthermore, compartment 26a is
not ASNW or PAWS and has no other designations such as a Peak Park Key Wildlife Site or
Sheffield City Council Local Nature Reserve. However, the woodland is prominent within the
landscape and does contain a small watercourse.
Retaining the compartment as conifer plantation does not preclude management options
that will enhance landscape, improve biodiversity or resilience. This could be achieved by
converting edges of the plantation to scalloped, graded broadleaved woodland edges.
Given the biodiversity gain that this work would achieve it is likely to attract Countryside
Stewardship Support.
Thinning of SCC’s compartment 25a in recent years has created good spacing between the
remaining trees. This is a deviation from the initial proposal in the design plan to clear fell
the compartment. The thinning operations will however stand good for a number of years
and no further works are proposed during the four years of this programme.
YW’s compartment 149a10 is a linear broadleaved woodland identified for long term
retention. There appears to have been some oak planting that has taken place in the last 15
or so years. The trees have established well but the compartment is quite open in parts and
these areas present an opportunity to establish a greater diversity of broadleaved tree and
shrub species such as rowan, cherry, field maple, hazel and hawthorn. This will provide cover
and food sources for wildlife as well as diversity of species and help with continuous cover
management.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 26 of 58

Damflask Reservoir
SCC’s compartments in the area are being managed for low intervention management for a
number of reasons; they are ASNW with a valuable mix of habitats, low commercial value
and steeply sloping ground with limited access to the public highway. The compartments
also have a very limited footpath network due to the steep ground. This greatly improves
the conservation interest of the woodland. The compartments provide high biodiversity
value and nothing more than low intervention management in the long term will be
necessary.
YW has undertaken a lot of management work in compartment 154a3 over the last decade
or so with a diverse age and species structure developing across the compartment.
Strines Reservoir
Neither SCC Parks and Countryside Service or SRWT own any land in the Strines Reservoir
area. SCC Rural Estates do own a large area of land to the south of the reservoir.
The significant landowners are YW and Fitzwilliam Wentworth Estate. The significant part of
the YW’s landholding is operated on a commercial basis with much of their woodland being
planted with conifer species. Just over 50% of the species composition around the reservoir
is Scots pine. Mixed conifer planting accounts for another 20% of woodland cover. Access to
the public highway along well constructed tracks is good for some compartments (151a1,
151a2 and 151a3) with good access along very well constructed tracks.
Compartments 150a1 and 150a2 are less well connected to the track that serves the public
highway. In these less well connected compartments conversion work to increase the range
of species will help to increase woodland resilience in the long term. Converting these to
mixed broadleaves would also link existing areas of broadleaved woodland, help increase
broadleaved woodland cover next to the western end of Dale Dike Reservoir, and improve
woodland resilience in the area. Again, as with other works around other reservoirs, the
introduction of as wide a range of species as possible will help build resilience further.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 27 of 58

Rivelin Dams
SCC’s compartment 52a and YW’s 158a2 and 158a3 face considerable restrictions to
management from the limited access that is available to the highway network. With the
exception of the most westerly area of SCCs 52a these compartments are accessed from a
track off the A57. The track itself is of reasonable quality but the bridge over the River
Rivelin in the eastern part of YW’s 158a2 is completely inadequate for extraction of timber.
The bridge is narrow and weak with tight angles to the track making access by larger vehicles
impossible. This is preventing positive management work from taking place within 5.2
hectares of YWs conifer stands as there is no alternative access. The availability of a stacking
area close to the A57 is also very limited. Replacing the existing bridge with something that
will allow access for extraction of timber will open up YW’s compartments 158a2 and 158a3
to management. There are a number of options for upgrading the crossing; either use a
temporary bridge and clearfell compartments 158a2 and 158a3, restocking with native
broadleaved to be managed as long term retention, or construct as more permanent
suitable river crossing and continue to manage the compartments as productive conifer in
the long term.
SCC’s 52a is very uneconomic to manage due to its very small size which invariably will
generate small quantities of timber from management and very challenging to access; the
western part of SCC’s compartment 52a cannot be accessed by vehicle because there is no
crossing point over the River Rivelin and there is a large difference in levels between the
highway and the woodland floor. Expensive engineering works would be necessary to
establish access. Managing these small areas as high quality wildlife habitat would be the
optimal solution. The compartment is not accessible to the public and so would be ideal for
creating high habitat value. The structure of the compartment is currently poor for
biodiversity. The woodland is dark because of closely spaced conifer and broadleaved trees,
there is poor species diversity, a poorly structured shrub and field layer and limited standing
and fallen deadwood habitat. A programme of silvicultural management to thin the two
small areas would be required. Some extraction would be possible from the easterly block
but not the westerly block. The work could involve the felling of the conifer species and
some of the beech, creating small felling coups, removing a 15 to 20m wide belt of trees
along the edge with the A57 to create a graded scalloped woodland edge, establishing a
greater number and range of native tree and shrub species. The opportunities for wildlife
improvement are high but the associated management costs will also be high with very little
or no return from timber.
SRWT manage a number of compartments that are PAWS. These are compartments 589a, b
and c. SRWT has committed in its management plan for Wyming Brook to restore these
woodland areas back to native broadleaved woodland. (The Wildlife Trusts Sheffield and
Rotherham 2014). Access to these areas, particularly the long linear compartment between
Rivelin Brook and A57, is particularly challenging. Access is along a public footpath that is
very uneven and steeply undulating with rocky outcrops.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 28 of 58

Photograph 6. Narrow rocky footpath unsuitable for management.
The eastern part of the compartment closest to the access track from A57 is also very steep
with rocky outcrops. Extraction of the conifer timber would be difficult. The most practical
option for removal of the timber would be over the fields between the woodland and A57.
These fields are in third party ownership and agreement with the landowner would be
required. Access over the fields is not optimal because the fields are wet in parts, extraction
routes to the edge of the A57 would be long and there are limited opportunities to access
the field from the A57. Loading from the highway would only be possible with traffic
management. This will make the proposed management very expensive. Consequently,
these limitations will make restoration works in this area of PAWS very challenging and
costly.
SRWT also propose to fell a block of Sitka spruce growing on a PAWS site on Wyming Brook
Drive. Access to this plantation is good, particularly for forestry vehicles such as forwarders
and there are options to extract to the A57 or to the car park on Redmires Road. Extracting
to Redmires Road would however provide a shorter route and better stacking and loading
area than off the A57. The volumes of timber arising from the felling work proposed by
SRWT is not particularly high but if this work is completed at the same time as work by YW
the cumulative volumes of timber would be more attractive as a package for contactors and
hauliers.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 29 of 58

Redmires Reservoirs
YW has identified its woodland areas to the north of the reservoirs for long term retention
management. Many of the sub compartments in these woodlands are single species
conifers, including large areas of pure Sitka spruce stands and a large element of mixed Sitka
spruce and larch, together with smaller compartments of pure Scots pine. This might be an
opportunity to gradually convert the conifer planting to a more species diverse mix,
including broadleaved species and introduce a more varied structure to the woodlands for
wildlife benefit. The woodlands around the water works don’t have open public access.
Restructuring them to be more structurally and species diverse for wildlife would be a good
opportunity to achieve biodiversity gain. This work would also make the woodlands more
resilient as discussed in Section 3 below.
Much of SCC’s woodland management to the west of the reservoirs in the immediate future
has been dictated largely by the significant windblow events in recent winters across
compartments 56 and 57. The affected areas are to be restocked with conifer species with
broadleaved margins during winter 2017. The management of the area to the west of the
reservoirs is therefore outside the time scales of this project.
To the east of the reservoirs is compartment 53. A large proportion of this compartment
(sub-compartment 53e) contains the bases of World War 1 camps and World War 2 prisoner
of war camps. The bases of the old buildings remain and are closely spaced in a grid
network. This compartment is mostly plantation of mixed conifer and broadleaves growing
at close spacings. The quality of the conifers is variable but those in sub-compartment 53c
are low quality.
Removal of the trees from the top of the monuments and from between the monuments
will help to protect them from future degradation. There will be additional costs associated
with this work because it will not be possible to extract over the tops of the monuments.
Felling will also need to be motor manual with the felling organised is such a way that timber
can be winched off of the monuments. This method of work will be more time consuming,
thus add additional costs to what could otherwise have been a much more cost efficient
operation in a compartment on flat ground.
Creating five small group felling in compartments 53b and 53c of approximately 0.02
hectares each, followed by restocking with mixed broadleaved species, will begin the
process of improving stand quality and species diversity using continuous cover forestry
techniques. Managing these compartments on a continuous cover basis will help reduce
impacts of management work on the woodland as a whole. This is important given the felling
proposals for 53e. Continuous cover techniques will be more costly to undertake here than a
clearfell programme.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 30 of 58

Section 3 Long-term resilience management options for the woodlands
Forestry is a long term land management proposition and any sudden, unplanned change in
tree health and cover can result in lost income, loss of habitat and biodiversity value,
including special and niche habitats, undesirable changes in landscape character and
impaired amenity and recreational value. Within the Sheffield Lakelands area there is also
potential for water quality to be affected.
Pest and disease outbreaks, particularly species specific pests and diseases, fire, extreme
wind events and climate change can all have a detrimental effect of woodland structure.
Climate change is still a relatively unknown quantity although climate modelling work has
been undertaken to demonstrate the possible impacts of various climate change scenarios.
Pests and diseases
There are a number of known pests and diseases in the UK that have the potential to
significantly alter the species composition and quality of woodlands within the Sheffield
Lakeland area. These include:
Phytophthora ramorum
A pathogen that affects the three main larch species. The Sheffield Lakeland area is within
Forestry Commission’s zone one for disease management. This means that there are special
procedures to follow in terms of felling licences and restocking.
Larch makes up a significant element of the species mix for all partners in the Lakeland area.
Whilst there have been no reported outbreaks in the vicinity of the Lakeland area since 2014
it is highly probably that there will be more in the future. The latest outbreaks were in the
western Peak District area (Forestry Commission 2017).
Larch is a valuable commercial species and therefore makes up a significant element of the
conifer planting throughout the Lakeland area. Fortunately most of the larch is growing in
mixed conifer and mixed conifer/broadleaf plantations meaning that an outbreak of the
disease would be less significant than in pure stands. There are however some pure larch
stands on YW’s landholding in the north of the area; 1.07ha at Midhope (133a5) and 4.29ha
in three sub-compartments (136a10, 136a12 and 136a15) at Underbank. Restructuring work
that improved species diversity in these areas will improve resilience.
Chalara ash-die back
The consequences of the disease on the UK ash population may not be as significant as
initially thought due to the natural genetic variability of ash. This may allow the species to
develop a natural resistance to the disease. Nevertheless, ash is one of the UK’s principle
large growing native broadleaf species. It represents a significant proportion of woodland
cover.
Whilst broadleaved woodland comprises a significant proportion of the woodland planting
throughout the Lakeland area ash is only a relatively small element of the woodland
composition. Ash-dieback will therefore have a relatively limited impact on the Lakeland
area. However, given the proposals of all of the main partners to convert some conifer
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 31 of 58

woodland areas to broadleaves, ash is a species that might have otherwise been relied upon
to create species diverse woodlands. Ash will certainly form an element of natural
regeneration in some areas following restructuring works but it may not be viable in the long
term and cannot be considered as part of a planting mix.
Sweet chestnut blight
There have been large scale losses of American sweet chestnut (Castanea dentata) in North
America and moderate losses of European sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa) in Europe. The
disease has been recorded at sites in London, Berkshire and Derbyshire in 2017 (Forestry
Commission 2017).
Whilst sweet chestnut makes up only a small element of stand compositions across the
Lakeland area it is a species that could be considered in broadleaved planting mixes to
improve stand diversity and build resilience, particularly because Sweet chestnut is a long
lived species and has good commercial and biodiversity value.
Pests and disease of oak
Oak processionary moth (OPM) is a pest that defoliates oak trees in the summer months.
The pest is a greater concern to public health than tree health because the hairs from the
caterpillars cause skin and respiratory problems for humans and animals. The pest is
confined to the south of England at present but its range has been slowly increasing despite
intensive control programmes. If the pest was become established there may be issues with
retaining oak in areas with high and frequent public access such as car parks.
There is still much to learn about acute oak decline, including the bacteria that cause decline
and death of both native species of oak, together with the possible implications of the
beetle, Agrilus biguttatus, in its spread. The condition can cause mature trees to die in four
to five years. It has been recorded as far north as Derbyshire/South Yorkshire since 2014
(Forestry Commission 2017). It is not a known problem in the Lakeland area at present but
the implications for the Lakeland’s woodland are obvious if it does become established. This
will need to be a serious consideration in the species choices of restocking mixes, especially
where there is a temptation to only use native broadleaved species.
Dothistroma needle blight
Affecting mainly Corsican pine, lodgepole pine and increasingly Scots pine the disease
reduces the vigour and yield of trees, and ultimately results in mortality after a number of
years of sustained infection.
There are pure stands of Scots pine at Langsett (YW 129a12, 129a14, 129a29, 130a7, 130a8,
131a5). Most of the stands are only small at around one hectare but there are two at 2.44
and 3.08ha each. There are two large stands of pure Scots pine at Midhope Reservoir (132a4
at 4.63ha, and 133a3 at 4.63ha, together with two smaller stands.
There are large areas to the south of Underbank Reservoir that are pure Scots pine stands,
together with a large mixed stand of larch and Scots pine. These two species occupy most of
the south side of the reservoir leaving the area vulnerable if Phytophora ramorum and /or
Dothistroma needle blight became established in the area. There is also one small stand of
Scots pine at Broomhead, a narrow linear planting on the norther edge of Agden, significant
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 32 of 58

areas of planting at Dale Dike (YW 149a9 and 150a1, 150a2 and 150a6), to the north of
Strines Reservoir (YW150a1, 150a2 and 151a1) and a small area at Redmires (162a1).
Needle blight could have a fairly significant affect over the Lakeland area if it became
established. Suggested restructuring work in Section 2 would increase species diversity and
reduce the impact of the disease should it become established.
Great spruce bark beetle
Present in the UK since 1982 it has been established in Wales and western England since
then. It is not currently a threat in the Lakeland areas but it has however extended its range
more recently to south Scotland (Forestry Commission 2017). It affects all species of spruce.
Rhizophagus grandis has had success in biological control.
Spruce species are important elements of conifer mixes throughout the Lakeland area.
However, there are also some pure stands of spruce. There is a significant element of the
planting at Langsett Reservoir that comprised Sitka spruce (11 hectares cmps 129a13 and
129a19, together with large plantings of Sitka/larch (10.5ha in cmps 129a20 and 129a41)
and Sitka/ Scots pine mixes (14 hectares cmps 129a5, 129a15 and 129a34) and a smaller
area of Sitka/lodgepole pine (2.7 hectares in cmps 129a6 and 129a42).
A significant proportion of YWs landholding to the north of Damflask Reservoir is pure Sitka
spruce plantation (4 hectares in compartments 153a2, 153a4 and 153a5).
There are two large compartments of pure Sitka spruce to the north and south of Rivelin
Dams (4.74 hectares in compartments 158a2 and 158a11).
The stand of Sitka spruce in SRWT’s land holding is proposed for clearfelling.
There are 4.4 hectares of pure Sitka spruce stands at Redmires owned by YW (compartments
160a1 and 161a2), together with a 3.22 hectare stand of mixed Sitka and larch planting
(160a4).
Large pine weevil and black pine weevil
Large and black pine weevils are a pest that breed in the stumps of a wide range of conifer
species after felling. They can have a significant impact on the restock trees with the former
feeding from the root collar upwards and the latter feeing on the roots. Their populations
cycle significantly depending on management operations such as felling and replanting.
Forest Research has been developing a Hylobius Management Support System (HMSS) over
a number of years as a way of trying to manage this pest with reduced reliance on pesticides
by timing the felling, monitoring populations of the pest and predicting optimal times to use
biological control measures. They continue to add management regimes to the system to
improve its success. (Forestry and Timber News April 2017). The system uses software that
relies on management practices being imputed. It is designed to be used by individual
woodland owners or by a group of owners working together. If a viable system can be
developed there may be opportunities for the woodland owners within the partnership to
collaborate and subscribe to a future version of the HMSS.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 33 of 58

Pests not yet established in the UK.
Bronze birch borer (Agrilus anxius) and emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) are two
beetles that have the potential to become established in the UK. Forest Research has
recently completed a study visit to North America as part of preparations in the event that
the pests become established in the UK. The global trade in timber products and live plants
make this a real possibility. Betula pendula has shown to be highly susceptible to bronze
birch borer in the USA and Fraxinus excelsior is known to be susceptible to emerald ash
borer. (Institute of Chartered Foresters 2017)
Whilst ash has been discussed above under ash die-back, silver birch is also an important
component of broadleaved stands throughout the Lakelands area, particularly in long term
retention areas on the edge of reservoirs where water quality is a consideration.
This brief summary of the main pest and disease threats to woodlands in the Lakeland area
demonstrates the potential impact to the area from pests and diseases.
The broad range of species that are potentially at risk demonstrates the potential
vulnerability of the woodlands.
Whilst there is a broad range of species across the Lakeland area as a whole, and it could be
argued that the wider Lakeland area is reasonably resilient, there are some reservoirs that
are more reliant on a narrower range of species than others. These include Langsett,
Midhope and Underbank Reservoirs. Outbreaks of pests or diseases may therefore have a
significant impact locally that could be damaging to local wildlife habitat, landscape
protection and have localised water quality issues for individual reservoirs.
Creating as broad a tree species range as possible around each reservoir will be the most
effective way of making the woodlands resilient to potential pest and disease threats.
Where there are stands of single species, introduction of additional species during
restructuring work will help to reduce the impact of species specific pests and diseases.
Given the number of potential threats to the Lakeland area from pests and diseases already
present in the north of England it is important that this work takes place as soon as possible.
Climate change
Climate change is probably not as significant a threat in the short to medium term for the
Lakeland area. This region of the UK is likely to be a bit more resilient because drought will
not be a significant problem and any increase in mean temperature is likely to increase rates
of tree growth.
Any damaging changes associated with climate change in the area are expected after the
current rotation of conifers across the Lakeland area has been felled. It is the planting design
and species selection for the next rotation that will provide opportunities to build in
resilience to a changing climate.
Resilience planning in the Lakeland area should begin now and the proposed felling and
restocking and PAWS restoration presents an ideal opportunity to begin this resilience work.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 34 of 58

As broad range of tree species as possible that are suited to the local conditions should be
considered in the same way as resilience planning against pests and diseases. However, the
suitability of seed origins and provenances of planting stock is also important in mitigating
against climate change. Trees planted today in the Lakeland areas might be expected to
tolerate climatic conditions currently experienced two degrees latitude to the south by the
time they reach maturity.
Forestry Commission’s website contains a comprehensive list of tree species that are
currently, or could be considered for planting in the UK (Forestry Commission 2017).The list
contains information on origin, provenances, site requirements, climatic requirements and
pests and diseases.
Tree nurseries are providing more information about origin and provenance of trees they
supply.
The partners may also wish to share information about their stands of trees with SilviFuture
(Silvifuture 2017). This is an organisation that collects data on species growing across the
country with the aim of providing as much information as possible to assist with resilience
planning.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 35 of 58

Section 4 Planting opportunities for water management and woodland buffering
There are three distinct areas that tree planting may help to combat flooding of urban areas
downstream to the east of the Lakeland area. These are:
1. The Porter or Little Don River that serves Langsett, Midhope and Underbank Reservoir to
the west of Stockbridge.
This water course runs through Stocksbridge before joining the River Don at Deepcar and
then flowing on through Wharncliffe Side, Oughtibridge and the very heavily populated and
industrialised areas of Middlewood, Hillsborough, Neepsend, Attercliffe, Meadowhall and on
through the centre of Rotherham. The ability to management water on the Don and its
upstream tributaries is obviously important to managing flood risk. However, the
opportunities to effect flood control measures in the Lakeland area itself are quite limited.
The length of the watercourse that flows through the Lakeland area, and that is outside the
three reservoirs themselves, is quite limited.
YW does however have control of the land immediately to the west of Langsett Reservoir
that the Porter/Little Don flows through and Thickwoods Brook to the south of the reservoir.
These tributaries are not particularly well treed and deciduous planting along parts of the
water courses may be of benefit.
Similarly, Shaw Brook and Shaw Sike to the south of Midhope Reservoir appear to pass
through land owned by YW. These tributaries, including Fenny Common Brook above Shaw
Brook, have more tree cover than Thickwoods Brook and there are fewer opportunities for
new planting.
2. The Strines, Dale Dike, Agden and Damflask Reservoirs group around Bradfield above the
River Loxley
A significant area of land around Agden Reservoir and to the south of Strines and Dale Dike
Reservoirs is owned by Sheffield City Council’s Rural Estates. There is an area immediately to
the south of Dale Dike and the southern tip of Strines that is dominated by bracken and does
not appeared to be used for productive agriculture. Woodland creation in this area would
connect Holes Clough, also on Rural Estate Land with YW’s compartments 150a1 to 150a3
and 152a2 at the southern point of Strines Reservoir.
There may also be opportunities to connect Cough Holes with Andrew Wood and SCC’s
compartment 25a with land between Sheffield Country Walk and the woodland on the edge
of the reservoir, however this land is currently managed for grazing. Taking this land out of
production may not be desirable.
3. Wyming Brook and River Rivelin associated with Redmire Reservoir and Rivelin Dams.
The Rivelin Dams area is quite well wooded, including the tributaries upstream of the Dams
such as Rivelin Brook, Hollow Meadows Brook and Oaking Clough. Trout Sike is less well
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 36 of 58

treed and planting along this tributary would help to link the woodlands at Hollow Meadows
Brook with Oaking Clough. I understand this land is owned by the Moscar Estate.
A large area to the south of Redmires Reservoirs is managed by Sheffield’s Rural Estates,
including the land around Fair-thorn Clough which is predominantly open moorland. Planting
in the area would extend the existing SCC’s woodland compartments 57 and 58 to the east
as well as offer opportunities to contribute to water management upstream of Redmires.
Afforestation is regulated by the Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) (England and
Wales) Regulations 1999, as amended. This means that Forestry Commission will need to be
notified of proposals to establish woodland and an environmental impact assessment will be
required for planting over a certain threshold area. The size of threshold areas is reduced in
sensitive areas such as National Parks.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 37 of 58

Section 5 Forest Stewardship
Sheffield City Council’s existing forest plan and Countryside Stewardship
To be confirmed – contact made with Forestry Commission – awaiting response.
Grant opportunities available under Countryside Stewardship
Unlike many of the grants funded from earlier Rural Development Schemes most elements
of Countryside Stewardship are competitive. Crucially, this means that not every application
will be successful.
Agreements signed before the UK leaves the EU will see finding guaranteed for the duration
of the agreement. Securing a grant agreement before departure would provide some
security of funding after departure from the EU.
Two of the three Countryside Stewardship elements are available for woodlands;
1. Higher tier. These are multi-year agreements for management operations
Applications for the higher tier agreements must be made by 5 May each year.
Higher tier payments must be claimed by 15 May each year.
The emphasis of Countryside Stewardship is on protection and enhancement of the
environment. This includes habitats, for biodiversity, landscape protection, water and flood
management, the historic environment, education and genetic conservation.
Woodland management operations that result in environmental enhancement and gain are
likely to be supported.
The Government’s document Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier Options, Supplements and
Capital Items provides a comprehensive list of items that can be funded together with a
payment rate.
Some examples of grant fundable items include:
Veteran tree survey (BE6) £221/tree.
Scrub control on historic and archaeological feature (HS4)£137.00/ha
Control of invasive plans species supplement (SP4) £324.00/ha
Woodland creation – maintenance payments (WD1) £200.00/ha
Woodland improvement (WD2) £100.00/ha
Woodland edge on arable land (WD3) £323.00/ha
Management of successional areas and scrub (WD7) £74/ha
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 38 of 58

List of higher tier capital items such as hedgerow management, maintenance and planting
works, drystone walling, fencing and gate installation is also available.
2. Capital-only grants include woodland management plan preparation, woodland creation and
tree health. These are normally two year agreements.
The capital only grants are open to applications all year.
Capital grants are normally paid following completion of the work but may be paid in stages
according to a schedule in the agreement.
Grants available include:
Restocking where trees have been infected by Phytophthora ramorum (confirmed by
statutory plant health notice) or Chalara fraxinea (confirmed by Forestry Commission or
Animal and Plant Health Agency) Paid at £3,500/ha for native trees on ancient woodland
sites or £2,750/ha on other sites and £1,750 for non-native trees on ancient woodland sites
and £2,250 on other sites.
(Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs 2017)
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 39 of 58

Section 6 Opportunities to engage other woodland owners in the area
There are a number of other key landowners in the Sheffield Lakeland areas that are
responsible for managing woodland and land that may be suitable for woodland
establishment. The most significant is possibly Wentworth Fitzwilliam Estate which owns large
areas of moorland and woodland around the Strines area.
The initial response from Anthony Barber Lomax, Agent for the Fitzwilliam Wentworth Estate
to becoming involved in the programme was favourable. He confirmed that the woodland
estate was included in management plans and he would await a further approach.
I attempted to make contact with the Broomhead Estate by letter but did not receive a
response from the estate.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 40 of 58

Table Collaborative Working Opportunities
Collaborative Working Opportunities between woodland owners where management has been identified by partners within or just beyond the project
period
Reservoir SCC
(Cmp No.)
Type of
management
Period
Broomhead 4b Thinning
Complete
(Wigtwizzle Hall) 09/20
Broomhead 8c Thinning (Yew Complete
Trees Lane) 09/24
Broomhead 8e Thinning (Yew Complete
Trees Lane) 09/26
Broomhead 14a-d,g Felling (Dwarriden) Complete
09/20-23
Moor Hall 12a Continuous cover
forestry.
Agden 19b, d, e, f, Thinning (Rocher Complete
g, h End Plantation 09/26
Agden 19c & i Felling (Rocher End Complete
Plantation) 09/21
Agden 20a-c Felling (Windy Complete
Bank)
09/21
Agden 21a Felling (Windy Bank Complete
Wood)
09/17 and
09/21
Agden 21c Thinning (Windy Complete
Bank Ridge 09/30
Agden 21e Thinning Windy
Bank Wood
Complete
09/20,
09/25,
09/30
YW
(Cmp. No)
Type of
management
Period Other
owner
139a2 Thinning 10 year None
141a1-11 Thinning 10 year None
141a1-11 Thinning 10 year None
139a2 Thinning 10 year None
140a1 and Thinning 10 year
142a2
147a2 Thinning 10 year None
147a2 Thinning 10 year None
146a2, 4 Thinning 10 year None
146a1, 3 Thinning 10 year None
146a1, 3 Thinning 10 year None
146a1, 3 Thinning 10 year None
Cmp.
No
Type of
management
Period

Agden 22a Felling (Agden Complete 146a1, 3 Thinning 10 year None
House Wood) 09/18
Agden 23b,d Thinning & Felling Complete 146a1, 3 Thinning 10 year None
(Eleven Acre
Plantation
09/18 &
09/25
Dale Dike 24a Felling (Thompson Complete 150a1-3 Thinning 10 year None
House Plantation) 09/19
Strines 150a1 – 3 Thinning 10 year Possibly Fitzwilliam Wentworth Estate
and 151a2
Rivelin Dams 51a-c Thinning (Surrey
Farm Plantation)
Complete
09/21
158a1 – a3 Thinning
Phase 1
10
years
Rivelin Dams 158a6, 7, 8,
10 and 11
Thinning 10
years
Redmires 53a-e Thinning (Redmires
Camp)
Complete
09/19
Redmires 54a, c, d Thinning Complete
09/21 &
26
Redmires 54b Felling Complete
09/18
160a1-13 Long term
retention
162a1-13 Long term
retention
162a1-13 Long term
retention
SRWT
(Wyming
Brook)
588,
589 &
590
Thinning, selective
felling in 589 and
felling in 590J
Within
5 years
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 42 of 58

Table 2 Proposed management and associated costs
Proposed management works over the four year programme, including estimated costs.
Reservoir Owner Comp. no Year of Operation Costs Income
work
from
Felling Planting Infrastructure
timber
Midhope YW 132a4, 133a4, Year 4 Conversion of 9 hectares of pure and mixed 13,000 32,000
133a5, 133a16
conifer stands to predominantly broadleaves
Midhope YW 133a11, Year 4 Establishment of a shrub layer along the
4,000
133a14, 133a15
woodland edge using mixed native shrubs.
Underbank YW 137a1 Year 2 Create three felling coups to manage the 1,000
woodland using continuous cover techniques.
Underbank YW 135a3 Year 2 Complimentary planting of mixed broadleaved
300
species in the open areas created by the
felling and topping of large mature beech.
Cherry, sweet chestnut, lime, Sessile oak, field
maple, hawthorn, holly.
Underbank YW 136a5, 136a7, Year 2 Conversion of 7.75 hectares of conifer 11,000 28,000
136a8, 136a12,
planting to mixed broadleaved woodland.
136a13,
136a14, 136a15
Broomhead SCC 4 Year 2 Fell conifers along in the riparian edge of Lee 2,400 4,000
Lane Dike and Allas Lane Dike around the
edge of compartment 4 to a width of between
15 and 20m and replant with mixed
broadleaves. Approximately 1.5ha.
Broomhead SCC 2, 4, 6, 12, 13,
14, 15
Year 2
Fell the conifers along a 15 to 20m margin on
the edge of the public highway in these
compartments and plant with mixed
broadleaved trees and shrubs to create a
graded woodland edge. Approximately 3.4ha.
5,000 10,000
HLF
grant
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 43 of 58

Reservoir Owner Comp. no Year of
work
Broomhead YW 141a11 Year 1 Construct a stacking area to the east of the
existing car park/pull in on Yewtrees Lane to
accommodate timber from both sides of
Yewtrees Lane.
Operation Costs Income
Felling Planting
from
Infrastructure
timber
6,500
Broomhead SCC 14a Year 1 Construct a stacking area to the east of Mill
Lane to accommodate timber from
management of SCC and YW’s works on both
sides of New Road.
Broomhead YW 141 Year 1 Upgrade the footpath on the northern side of
the reservoir to accommodate access for
management operations. Approximately 1km.
Moor Hall SCC 11b and c Year 3 Fell this very uneconomic woodland and
replant with mixed species broadleaves with
scalloped and graded woodland edges to
maximise landscape interest and biodiversity
value.
Moor Hall YW 140a1 Year 1 Construct a small stacking and loading bay for
timber from the compartment.
Moor Hall SCC 9g Year 1 Increase the size of the stacking area to
accommodate timber from compartment 11
during the project and from management of
compartment 9 in the future.
Agden SCC 19, 22 Year 2 Felling of the conifer from the PAWs areas of
these compartments.
Agden SCC 21a Year1 Thinning and small group felling to create two
small felling coups approximately
0.02hectares, including creating standing
deadwood habitat.
6,000 14,000
27,000
1,000
5,000
56,000
4,500
5,000
HLF
grant
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 44 of 58

Reservoir Owner Comp. no Year of
work
Agden YW 146a2 and
146a4
Year 1
Operation Costs Income
Felling Planting
from
Infrastructure
timber
Fell the conifer and retain any broadleaves 4,500 6,200
where this is practical and replant with mixed
broadleaves.
3,500
Dale Dike YW 149a10 Year1 Undertake complimentary planting across the
compartment using a wide range of mixed
broadleaved tree and shrub species.
Dale Dike SCC 26a Year 3 Undertake restructuring work to the
woodland edges by creating a scalloped and
graded edge established with broadleaves.
Dale Dike SCC 26b Year 2 Construct a stacking and turning area for a
short wheel based lorry.
Damflask YW 155a4 Year 2 Negotiate access across the neighbouring field
to the north and allow for reinstatement work
to field and replacement of fencing.
Strines YW 150a1, 150a2 Year 2 Convert Scots pine stands to mixed
broadleaved woodland.
Rivelin
Dams
SCC &
YW
52a (SCC) and
158a2 (YW)
Year 1
Construct a water crossing able to support
timber extraction to allow management of the
eastern part of 52a and all of 158a2. There are
a number of modern options available for the
short span that is required here.
Steel beam and timber deck bridges and
stress laminated timber bridges are a cost
effective way of creating a more permanent
crossing. There are also temporary bridge
options that use steel fabricated sections that
have a maximum span of 6m. A temporary
structure to complete one off management
operations could be considered.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 45 of 58
1,500 2,000
5,600 8,100
30,000
2,000
To be
confirmed
HLF
grant

Reservoir Owner Comp. no Year of
work
Rivelin
Dams
Rivelin
Dams
Rivelin
Dams
Rivelin
Dams
Rivelin
Dams
Operation Costs Income
Felling Planting
from
Infrastructure
timber
2,000 1,800
SCC 52a Year 3 Thinning, small group felling and creation of a
15m to 20 wide graded woodland edge with
the A57. Planting of the woodland edge with
mixed broadleaved shrubs and small growing
tree species.
YW 158a2, 158a3 Year 3 Thin the compartments. OR 7,000
Clearfell and replant with a wide range of
mixed broadleaves.
10,000 18,000
SRWT 588 Year3 Selective thinning. 25,000
SRWT 589a, b, c Year 3 Selective felling of conifers within the PAWS
area and restocking with as wide a range of
broadleaves as possible to improve resilience
as well as improving biodiversity. Some
bracken control will be necessary in areas
prior to planting.
Extraction over the field to the north will be
necessary with the landowner’s permission.
Loading will be from the A57. The loading on
the A57 will require traffic management given
the width of road and blind bends.
SRWT 590j Year 4 Clearfell the sub-compartment and extract to
Redmires Road and restock with a wide range
of mixed broadleaved species
21,000 14,000
1,500 3,600
Redmires YW 160 Year 4 Begin work to restructure the conifer 5000 300
plantations by creating four to six felling
coups of 0.02 hectares and restocking with
mixed broadleaves to begin the process
building more resilience into the woodland.
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 46 of 58
HLF
grant

Reservoir Owner Comp. no Year of
work
Operation Costs Income
from
Felling Planting Infrastructure
timber
Redmires SCC 53b and 53c Year 4 Create five small felling coups of 0.02 hectares
each to begin the process of improving stand
quality on a continuous cover basis.
Plant the coups with mixed broadleaves.
Redmires SCC 53e Year 4 Felling of the trees on and around the
monuments.
TOTAL
2,000 300
6,000
157,500 143,900 109,000
HLF
grant
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 47 of 58

Table 3 Cost and benefit analysis for each partner
Table 3a Yorkshire Water
Reservoir Comp. no Operation Costs Income
Felling Planting
from
Infrastructure
timber
Midhope 132a4, 133a4, 133a5, Conversion of 9 hectares of pure and mixed conifer 13,000 32,000 13,000
133a16
stands to predominantly broadleaves
Midhope 133a11, 133a14, Establishment of a shrub layer along the woodland
4,000
133a15
edge using hawthorn, holly, hazel and guelder rose.
Midhope 137a1 Create three felling coups to manage the woodland 1,000 1,000
using continuous cover techniques.
Underbank 135a3 Complimentary planting of mixed broadleaved
300
species in the open areas created by the felling and
topping of large mature beech.
Cherry, sweet chestnut, lime, Sessile oak, field
maple, hawthorn, holly.
Underbank 136a5, 136a7, 136a8, Conversion of 7.75 hectares of conifer planting to 11,000 28,000 11,000
136a12, 136a13, mixed broadleaved woodland.
136a14, 136a15
Broomhead 141a11 Construct a stacking area to the east of the existing
6,500
car park/pull in on Yewtrees Lane to accommodate
timber from both sides of Yewtrees Lane.
Moor Hall 140a Construct a small stacking and loading bay for
4,500
timber arising from management of the
compartment.
Agden 146a2 and 146a4 Fell the conifer and retain any broadleaves where 4,500 6,200
this is practical and replant with mixed broadleaves.
HLF
grant
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 48 of 58

Reservoir Comp. no Operation Costs Income
Felling Planting Infrastructure
timber
from
Dale Dike 149a10 Undertake complimentary planting across the
3,500
compartment using a wide range of mixed
broadleaved tree and shrub species.
Damflask 155a4 Negotiate access across the neighbouring field to the
2,000
north and allow for reinstatement work to field and
replacement of fencing .
Rivelin 158a2
Construct a water crossing able to support timber
To be
Dams
extraction to allow management of the eastern part
confirmed
of 52a and all of 158a2. There are a number of
modern options available for the short span that is
required here.
Steel beam and timber deck bridges and stress
laminated timber bridges are a cost effective way of
creating a more permanent crossing. There are also
temporary bridge options that use steel fabricated
sections that have a maximum span of 6m. A
temporary structure to complete one off
management operations could be considered.
Rivelin 158a2, 158a3 Thin the compartments. OR 7,000
Dams
Clearfell and replant with a wide range of mixed 10,000 18,000
broadleaves.
Redmires 160 Begin work to restructure the conifer plantations by 5000 300
creating felling coups and restocking with mixed
broadleaves to begin the process building more
resilience into the woodland.
TOTALS 51,500 92,300 38,000
HLF
grant
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 49 of 58

Table 3b Sheffield City Council
Reservoir Comp. no Operation Costs Income
Felling Planting
from
Infrastructure
timber
Broomhead 4 Fell conifers along in the riparian edge of 2,400 4,000
Lee Lane Dike and Allas Lane Dike around
the edge of compartment 4 to a width of
between 15 and 20m and replant with
mixed broadleaves.
Broomhead 2, 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15 Fell the conifers along a 15 to 20m margin 5,000 10,000
on the edge of the public highway in these
compartments and plant with mixed
broadleaved trees and shrubs to create a
graded woodland edge.
HLF
grant
Broomhead 14a Construct a stacking area to the east of Mill
Lane to accommodate timber from
management of SCC and YW’s works on
both sides of New Road.
Moor Hall 11b and c Fell this very uneconomic woodland and
replant with mixed species broadleaves
with scalloped and graded woodland edges
to maximise landscape interest and
biodiversity value.
Moor Hall 9g Increase the size of the stacking area to
accommodate timber from compartment
11 during the project and from
management of compartment 9 in the
future.
Agden 19, 22 Felling of the conifer from the PAWs areas
of these compartments.
6,000 14,000
27,000
5,000
5,000
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 50 of 58

Reservoir Comp. no Operation Costs Income
Felling Planting Infrastructure
from
timber
Agden 21a Thinning and small group felling to create 1,000
two small felling coups approximately
0.02hectares, including creating standing
deadwood habitat.
Dale Dike 26a Undertake restructuring work to the 1,500 2,000
woodland edges by creating a scalloped
and graded edge established with
broadleaves.
Damflask 155a4 Negotiate access across the neighbouring
2,000
field to the north and allow for
reinstatement work to field and
replacement of fencing .
Rivelin Dams 52a Silvicultural management including 2,000 1,800
thinning, small group felling and creation of
a 15m to 20 wide graded woodland edge
with the A57.
Planting of the woodland edge along A57
with mixed native broadleaved shrubs and
small growing broadleaved tree species.
Redmires 53b and 53c Create five small felling coups of 0.02 2,000 300
hectares each to begin the process of
improving stand quality on a continuous
cover basis.
Plant the coups with mixed broadleaves.
Redmires 53e Felling of the trees on and around the 6,000
monuments.
TOTALS 52,900 32,100 12,000
HLF
grant
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 51 of 58

Table 3c Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Reservoir Comp. no Operation Costs Income
from
Felling Planting Infrastructure
timber
Rivelin Dams 588 Selective thinning 25,000
Rivelin Dams 589a, b, c Selective felling of conifers within the 21,000 14,000
PAWS area and restocking with as wide a
range of broadleaves as possible to
improve resilience as well as improving
biodiversity. Some bracken control will be
necessary in areas prior to planting.
Extraction over the field to the north will be
necessary with the landowner’s permission.
Loading will be from the A57. The loading
on the A57 will require traffic management
given the width of road and blind bends.
Rivelin Dams 590j Clearfell the sub-compartment and extract 1,500 3,600
to Redmires Road and restock with a wide
range of mixed broadleaved species
TOTALS 47,500 17,600
HLF
grant
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 52 of 58

275m
C
P
E
N
E
Old
Sl
N
L A N E
H
CLIFF LANE
Track
E
Tk
Spr
Spr
W
PH
Spr
Spr
Spr
300m
260m
W
LA
Sma l Clough
Drain
Cut Gate
M
Path
Path
Li tle
The
Porter
or
290m
Swinden
Lodge
Iss
250m
FB
Spr
B
Thick
woods
Brook
Ws
dis
Iss
The
225m
Pit
dis
Sks
Iss
235m
N
E
285m
Brook House Lane (Track
280m
270m
LA
Path
Drain
Tk
313m
Path
300m
Penistone Lane (Track
Works
dis
Underbank Reservoir Reservoir
Barnside
Lodge
Edge Cli f
Track
Lawton
Farm
Miller Lane
Farm
Underbank
Outdoor Centre
Track
Track
& CP Bdy
Met Dist
Weirs
Unsliven
Issues
L A N E
GILROYD
C L A Y
IT S LANE
LANE
Path
B A C K
Delf Edge
Issues
L A Y
PITS LANE
SMITHY
Weirs
MOOR
L A N
LANE
OAKS
L A
F T
Y C R O
Weir
S T O
Bridge
SHAW
MANCHESTER ROAD
LANE
K W O O D S
LOW MOOR
LANE
T H IC
Drain
S T O C K S
LANE
LANE
A L L
MIDHOPE
MIDHOPE LANE
A6 16
JOSEPHLANE
PENISTONE LANE
MIDHOPE
DARK L A N
Ra ten
Cliff Wood
Langsett Reservoir
Sheephouse
Wood
Gu ter
Langse t Bank
284m
293m
291m
276m
Langsett
Barn
Langsett
House
249m
The Bungalow
249m
248m
235m
240m
255m
265m
300m
295m
250m
260m
285m
275m
255m
250m
275m
Path
Works
Bank
Brook House
Track
Bank Lane
295m
Path
300m
B R O O K
H O U S E
LANE
280m
Car Park
Moorland
View
Drain
Issues
Weir
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
Issues
285m
Drain
Path
Ford
Thickwoods
Nab
Midhope Cliff
Low Moor
Quarry
Hagg Wood
Bridge
Collects
Sinks
Range Moor
Spring Moor
Shaw Sike
Edge Cli f
Mauk Royd
Langsett Reservoir
296m
271m
273m
279m
269m
Reservoir
Midhope
Gill Royd
288m
268m
228m
Ra ten Gu ter
264m
277m
258m
249m
221m
216m
202m
223m
187m
186m
259m
264m
263m
264m
269m
273m
276m
265m
267m
269m
275m
275m
260m
290m
250m
275m
265m
280m
275m
250m
270m
290m
275m
260m
290m
285m
275m
265m
310m
250m
240m
235m
JOSEPH LANE
L A
P E
320m
ID H O
300m
Met Dist & CP Bdy
Path
Drain
A616
Issues
Mast
Stepping
Stones
Don River
Issues
Path
Brook House
Track
Badger Lane Brook
Track
Far
Swinden
LANGSETT CP
Issues
Swinden
Rocher
How
Wells
280m
260m
Path
Crookland
Wood
291m
256m
257m
273m
Bank
Langsett
Resr
Hingcliff Scar Delf Edge
304m
316m
CLIFF
Track
Path
271m
300m
280m
290m
273m
310m
Kiln Bank Brook
Path
Hagg Brook
Swinden Walls
283m
Fox Holes
Brook House
Bridge
How Rocher
Drain
Sinks
Issues
Issues
Issues
Spreads
Issues
Weir
Issues
r o o k
260m
300m
Sinks
Weirs
200m
185m
Rookery
190m
205m
Beck
Spring
225m
Brook
Cote Field
Hingcliff
Common
Sheepfold
Upper
Midhope
Reservoir
House
Reservoir
Cottage
Hagg
Hill House
Farm
Oaks
Underbank
Hollin
Bank
210m
Works
Jenkin
Sheephouse Wood
Reservoir
Spring
Brooks
Bank Bridge
Langley
Brook
175m
180m
Drain
Hagg
Clough
Langsett Reservoir
Reservoir
Plant mixed
broadleaved species
in the gaps in the
canopy created by
earlier felling work.
Manage the
woodland on a
continuous cover
basis by create
three felling coups.
Convert
approximately 7.75
hectares of conifer
woodland to mixed
broadleaved
woodland.
Establish aa shrub
layer of mixed
broadleaves along
the woodland edge
to provide shelter.
Convert
approximately 9
hectares of conifer
woodland to mixed
broadleaved
woodland.
Badger Lane
HOUSE
BROOK
OLD MANCHESTER ROAD
Langsett, Midhope and Underbank Reservoirs
Plan 1 Yorkshire Water compartment
Sheffield City Council compartment
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust compartment
Page 53 of 58

Broomhead and Mole Hall Reservoirs
Create a stacking area on the
edge of 14a to
accommodate management
operations on both sides of
New Road
Extend the informal car park
area in 141a11 to the east to
provide a stacking area for
management of cmp 141
and 08c and 08d
Fell the conifers along the
riparian edge of these dikes
to a width of 15 - 20m and
establish mixed broadleaves
and open space
Upgrade the footpath on the northern
side of the reservoir to accommodate
vehicles for management
Allas Lane Dike
Lee Lane Dike
Broomhead
Construct a small
stacking and
loading area for
management of
140a1 and 12a
Mole Hall
Fell the conifers along the
highway edge to a width of
15 - 20m and establish mixed
broadleaves and open space
Fell 11b and 11c and
restock with mixed
broadleaves
Extend the small
stacking area in 9g to
accommodate
additional thinning
and felling.
Carr
House
Meadows
Plan 2
Yorkshire Water compartment
Sheffield City Council compartment
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust compartment
Page 54 of 58

Strines, Dale Dike, Agden and Damflask Reservoirs
Agden
Bogg
Felling of conifers
from the PAWS
areas of 19 and 22
Thinning and small
group group felling
to create two
felling coups of
0.02ha.
Fell the conifers ,
leaving the
broadleaves where
practical and
establish mixed
broadleaves.
Agden
Felling of conifers
from the PAWS
areas of 19 and 22
Create a stacking and turning
are to allow management to
take place.
Dale Dike
Create a 15 to 20m
wide grade edge by
felling the conifers
and establishing
broadleaved trees
and shrubs.
Strines
Undertake
complimentary
planting of mixed
broadleaves.
Negotiate access over
the neighbouring field
for management and
extraction to Oaks Lane
Damflask
Convert these Scots pine
stands to mixed broadleaves.
Plan 3
Yorkshire Water compartment
Sheffield City Council compartment
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust compartment
Page 55 of 58

Rivelin Dams and Redmires Reservoirs
Wyming Brook
Thinning, small
group felling and
creation of a 20m
graded woodland
edge along A57.
PAWS restoration by selective
felling of conifers. Extraction
over the field to the north and
timber loaded from A57. To
be agreed with the
landowner. Planting of a wide
range of mixed broadleaves.
Thinning (or felling
and restocking with
mixed broadleaves)
of the conifer
plantations.
Clearfell the
sub-compartment
(590j) of Sitka
spruce and restock
with mixed
broadleaves.
Wyming Brook
Rivelin Dams
Construct a
suitable water
crossing to extract
timber from 52 and
158a2 and 158a3.
Fox Hagg
Fell trees growing
on and immediately
adjacent to the
monuments.
Begin to
restructure the
conifer woodlands
by creating felling
coups to restocking
with mixed
broadleaves.
Redmires Reservoir
Selective thinning
retaining as wider a
range of species,
including conifer,
as possible.
Begin to improve stand
quality and species
diversity by creating five
felling coups and
restocking with mixed
broadleaves.
Plan 4
Yorkshire Water compartment
Sheffield City Council compartment
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust compartment
Page 56 of 58

Bibliography
The Wildlife Trusts Sheffield and Rotherham (2014) Management Plan For Wyming Brook Nature
Reserve April 2014 to March 2019. Pages 37 – 40.
FORESTRY COMMISSION, 2017 Forestry Commission, Phytpothora ramorum outbreak map July 2017
[viewed 9 October 2017] Available from:
https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/PramorumOutbreakMapJuly2017.pdf/$FILE/PramorumOutbreakM
apJuly2017.pdf.
FORESTRY COMMISSION, 2017 Forestry Commission, Sweet chestnut blight (Cryphonectria
parasitica) [viewed 19 October 2017] Available from: https://www.forestry.gov.uk/chestnutblight
FORESTRY COMMISSION, 2017 Forestry Commission, Oak processionary moth (Thaumetopoea
processionea) [viewed 19 October 2017] Available from: https://www.forestry.gov.uk/opm
FORESTRY COMMISSION, 2017 Forest Research, Acute oak decline (AOD): Incidence and distribution
[viewed 9 October 2017] Available from: https://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/infd-7ul9xr
FORESTRY COMMISSION, 2017 Forestry Commission, Great Spruce Bark Beetle (Dendroctonus
micans) [viewed 9 October 2017] Available from: https://www.forestry.gov.uk/greatsprucebeetle
Forestry and Timber News (April 2017), An integrated pest management strategy for Hylobius – the
holy grail of forestry? Tilhill Forestry. P45
Institute of Chartered Foresters, 2017 Chartered Forester Autumn 2017; Preparing for an Invasion.
Edinburgh Pages 23 to 25.
FORESTRY COMMISSION, 2017 Forestry Commission Tree and Shrub Species Selection [viewed 20
October 2017] Available from https://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-8v5rma
SILVIFUTURE (2017) [viewed 20 October 2017] Available from:
https://www.silvifuture.org.uk/database
DEPARTMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT FOOR AND RURAL AFFAIRS, 2017 Countryside Stewardship:
woodland support [viewed 21 October 2017] Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/countryside-stewardship-woodland-support#fundingfor-woodland-improvement
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 57 of 58

Appendix 1 Maps examined for preparation of this report
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
The Woodland Heart. Assessment of the woodlands Page 58 of 58

Oak Wood, Underbank Reservoir.
Although not under an Immediate threat, in the short term it will be prudent carry out fencing and drystone walling work to the boundary to exclude livestock
from the wood, to help any natural regeneration succeed. Combined with crown thinning and under planting with Beech this should ensure the continuity
of the wood. Despite being called ‘Oak Wood’ the wood is almost entirely made up of Beech.

Tree 22 Tree 22

Tree 23 Tree 21

Tree no, Click
to see photo if
available.
Date Of Survey Grid Reference Map Location
(Reservoir)
Species Girth Measured m. Estimated Girth Height of Girth m. Local Historic Tree
Name
Oak
Oak
Oak
Oak
Whitebeam
Whitebeam
Whitebeam
Whitebeam
Tree Public Accessibility
Type
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
4.05 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
next to footpath or road)
access (permission not
required to view)
access (permission required to
view)
3.75 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
next to footpath or road)
3.15 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
access (permission required to
view)
next to footpath or road)
access (permission required to
view)
next to footpath or road)
3.90 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
next to footpath or road)
2.06 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
next to footpath or road)
1.80 1 hug 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
next to footpath or road)
1.80 1 hug 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
next to footpath or road)
2.37 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
next to footpath or road)
access (permission required to
view)
access (permission required to
view)
access (permission required to
view)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
next to footpath or road)
Tree Form Standing Or Fallen Living Status Tree Location Comments on Location and Access Veteran Status Champion
Status
Ancient Tree Site
Ancient Tree Site
Comment
Is on a Woodland
Trust Wood
Organisation
YW / YW
Tennant
Tree Fungi
Tree
Invertebrates
Tree Epiphytes Tree Bats Tree Condition Tree Protection Tree Threats Tree at Risk (Low,
Medium, High)
Risk to Public, property Comments Reccomendations Comment from legacy
database
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Veteran tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Moss Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland By footbridge, largest of group of approx 14 Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Low No Yes
Notable Beech.
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Lichen Low No Twin stemmed tree from approximately 2m
Yes
from ground.
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Veteran tree No Yorkshire Water Decaying wood in the crown Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Parkland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Low No Part of Lime, beech, sycamore strip of
Yes
woodland along reservoir dam, of which
the 12 beech are most 'notable'
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Moss Low No One of four beech. Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Roadside Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Roadside Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Decaying wood in the crown Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Decaying wood in the crown Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Holes or water pockets Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Veteran tree No Yorkshire Water Other Holes or water pockets, Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood
Low No Yes
on the ground
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Lichen Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Holes or water pockets Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Lichen Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Decaying wood in the crown Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Woodland within tennanted farm land. No Notable tree No Yorkshire Water YW Tennant Evidence of Lichen Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground Grazing damage around and Med No Semi mature / mature / over mature Woodland in decline carry out drystone
Yes
public access
to base of tree
woodland, predominantly Beech.
walling and fencing to exclude livestock
Woodland called 'Oak Wood' . App 1.2ha. and underplant with Beech.
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Woodland within tennanted farm land. No Veteran tree No Yorkshire Water YW Tennant Evidence of Lichen Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground Grazing damage around and Med No Semi mature / mature / over mature Woodland in decline carry out drystone
Yes
public access
to base of tree
woodland, predominantly Beech.
walling and fencing to exclude livestock
Woodland called 'Oak Wood' . App 1.2ha. and underplant with Beech.
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Woodland within tennanted farm land. No Notable tree No Yorkshire Water YW Tennant Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground Grazing damage around and Med No Semi mature / mature / over mature Woodland in decline carry out drystone
Yes
public access
to base of tree
woodland, predominantly Beech.
walling and fencing to exclude livestock
Woodland called 'Oak Wood' . App 1.2ha. and underplant with Beech.
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Decaying wood on the ground, Decaying wood in the crown, Holes or
Low No Yes
water pockets, Holes or water pockets
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Moss Hollowing branches, Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on
Low No Yes
the ground
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Other Decaying wood on the ground, Decaying wood in the crown Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Veteran tree No Yorkshire Water Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Veteran tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Lichen Decaying wood on the ground, Decaying wood in the crown, Holes or
Low No Yes
water pockets
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Veteran tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Moss Decaying wood on the ground, Decaying wood in the crown Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Veteran tree No Yorkshire Water Other Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Southern bracket
Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground, Holes or
Low No Yes
(Ganoderma
water pockets,
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water australe)
Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Lichen Decaying wood on the ground, Decaying wood in the crown, Holes or
Low No Yes
water pockets
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Lichen Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Lichen Decaying wood on the ground, Decaying wood in the crown Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Lichen Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground Low No Yes
on the ground
to base of tree
Legacy Contact
Name
Legacy Contact
Notes
Low No Yes
Low No Yes
Publicly Visible on
Website
1 02/06/2017 SK2368691117 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=423686&y=391117 Dale Dike Beech 4.10 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
2 05/06/2017 SK2333990631 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=423339&y=390631 Strines Beech 3.15 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
3 08/06/2017 SK2685885638 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=426858&y=385638 Redmires Beech 3.80 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
4 12/06/2017 SK2501893030 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=425018&y=393030 Agden Yew 2.10 1 hug 0.9 Public - partial access (e.g.
5 12/06/2017 SK2615892805 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=426158&y=392805 Agden Pedunculate
6 12/06/2017 SK2609192212 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=426091&y=392212 Agden Beech 3.25 2 hugs 1.5 Private - visible from public
7 14/06/2017 SK2733290022 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=427332&y=390022 Damflask Beech 4.90 3 hugs 1.5 Private - not visible from public
8 14/06/2017 SK2760590674 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=427605&y=390674 Damflask Pedunculate
9 14/06/2017 SK2760890650 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=427608&y=390650 Damflask Pedunculate
10 11/07/2017 SK2707191479 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=427071&y=391479 Damflask Beech 3.47 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
11 11/07/2017 SK2708891509 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=427088&y=391509 Damflask Beech 3.00 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
12 11/07/2017 SK2708191507 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=427081&y=391507 Damflask Beech 2.65 2 hugs 1.5 Private - not visible from public
13 11/07/2017 SK2707691471 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=427076&y=391471 Damflask Beech 3.54 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
14 11/07/2017 SK2883495568 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=428834&y=395568 Morehall Beech 4.00 3 hugs 1.5 Private - not visible from public
15 11/07/2017 SK2893095554 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=428930&y=395554 Morehall Beech 4.85 3 hugs 1.3 Public - partial access (e.g.
16 11/07/2017 SK2926895652 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=429268&y=395652 Morehall Pedunculate
17 11/07/2017 SK2925095681 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=429250&y=395681 Morehall Common
18 11/07/2017 SK2927295670 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=429272&y=395670 Morehall Common
19 11/07/2017 SK2854995860 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=428549&y=395860 Morehall Common
20 11/07/2017 SK2832195984 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=428321&y=395984 Morehall Common
21 12/07/2017 SK2397198971 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=423971&y=398971 Underbank Beech 3.50 2 hugs 1.5 Private - not visible from public
22 12/07/2017 SK2396498958 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=423964&y=398958 Underbank Beech 4.55 3 hugs 1.5 Private - not visible from public
23 12/07/2017 SK2403399009 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424033&y=399009 Underbank Beech 3.43 2 hugs 1.5 Private - not visible from public
24 12/07/2017 SK2475099621 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424750&y=399621 Underbank Beech 3.20 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
25 12/07/2017 SK2471599656 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424715&y=399656 Underbank Beech 3.30 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
26 12/07/2017 SK2467399640 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424673&y=399640 Underbank Beech 3.17 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
27 12/07/2017 SK2466799641 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424667&y=399641 Underbank Beech 3.50 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
28 12/07/2017 SK2465399649 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424653&y=399649 Underbank Beech 3.70 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
29 12/07/2017 SK2464999615 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424649&y=399615 Underbank Beech 3.20 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
30 12/07/2017 SK2450399613 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424503&y=399613 Underbank Beech 4.50 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
31 12/07/2017 SK2444399602 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424443&y=399602 Underbank Beech 3.95 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
32 12/07/2017 SK2442799615 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424427&y=399615 Underbank Beech 3.30 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
33 12/07/2017 SK2436299617 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424362&y=399617 Underbank Beech 3.05 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
34 12/07/2017 SK2435299613 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424352&y=399613 Underbank Beech 3.70 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
35 12/07/2017 SK2432999630 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424329&y=399630 Underbank Beech 3.00 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
36 12/07/2017 SK2426999648 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424269&y=399648 Underbank Beech 3.95 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
37 12/07/2017 SK2424199652 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424241&y=399652 Underbank Beech 3.20 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
38 12/07/2017 SK2408199703 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424081&y=399703 Underbank Beech 3.20 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
39 12/07/2017 SK2382799824 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=423827&y=399824 Underbank Beech 3.20 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
40 12/07/2017 SK2383099799 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=423830&y=399799 Underbank Beech 3.05 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
41 12/07/2017 SK2403999668 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424039&y=399668 Underbank Beech 3.20 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
42 12/07/2017 SK2406499669 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424064&y=399669 Underbank Beech 37.00 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
43 12/07/2017 SK2407099664 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424070&y=399664 Underbank Beech 2.75 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
44 12/07/2017 SK2407399662 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424073&y=399662 Underbank Beech 2.80 2 hugs 15 Public - partial access (e.g.
45 12/07/2017 SK2408599662 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424085&y=399662 Underbank Beech 3.50 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
46 12/07/2017 SK2428899592 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424288&y=399592 Underbank Beech 3.20 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
47 12/07/2017 SK2436199572 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=424361&y=399572 Underbank Beech 3.40 2 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
48 14/07/2017 SE1948600606 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=419486&y=400606 Langsett Ash 5.00 3 hugs 0.75 Public - partial access (e.g.
49 14/07/2017 SE2169700200 http://www.gridreferencefinder.com/index.php?x=421697&y=400200 Langsett Ash 4.20 3 hugs 1.5 Public - partial access (e.g.
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of, Other Holes or water pockets, Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Decaying wood in the crown Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Moss Decaying wood on the ground, Decaying wood in the crown Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Lichen Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Lichen Decaying wood on the ground, Decaying wood in the crown Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Lichen Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Decaying wood in the crown, Decaying wood on the ground Low No Yes
Stump (high >4m) Standing Dead Woodland Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Low No Yes
Multi stem Standing Alive Woodland Veteran tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of Lichen Hollowing trunk Low No Yes
Maiden Standing Alive Field Notable tree No Yorkshire Water Evidence of other Evidence of Moss Decaying wood in the crown Grazing damage around and

”Ancient” & Veteran Tree Survey;
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
Prepared By:
Fountains Forestry
Keenleyside 2,
Crabtree Business Centre
Little Holtby,
Northallerton
DL7 9LN
www.fountainsforestry.co.uk

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
Table of Contents
Page
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Site Description ..................................................................................................... 3
3.0 Recorded information............................................................................................ 4
4.0 Survey results ........................................................................................................ 4
5.0 Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………………..5
5.0 Appendix 1 Site Location map.................................................................................6
Appendix 2 Detailed site maps………………………………………………………………………………7
Appendix 3 Oak Wood map, photographs……………………………………………………………13
Appendix 4 Tree photographs………………………………………………………………………….….14
2

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of the survey was to identify “Ancient”, Veteran and Notable trees across
the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area.
“Ancient” trees are important features of the landscape for their landscape, historical,
cultural and ecological benefits.
The Woodland Trust describes “An “Ancient” tree is one that makes you go ‘wow, it’s
huge, fatter than any other tree like that round here’. It will be really fat, but probably
not that tall, as like old people they shrink down with age. Like people, trees grow and
age at different rates depending on where they are and what happens to them during
their lifetime.”
A 'veteran tree' is usually in the second or mature stage of its life and has important
wildlife and habitat features including; hollowing or associated decay fungi, holes,
wounds and large dead branches. It will generally include old trees but also younger,
middle aged trees where premature aging characteristics are present.
A tree of local importance, or of personal significance to the individual recorder is
called a ‘notable tree’. This includes specimen trees or those considered to be
potential, next generation veteran trees.
Once identified this information can be used as a management tool to help maintain
this important asset.
The survey was undertaken following the guidelines advised by the Woodland Trust
as part of the Ancient Tree Hunt. The results of the survey will be added to the
Woodland Trust’s Ancient Tree Hunt website http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/
2.0 Site Description
Yorkshire Water own over 29,000 hectares of land in Yorkshire and North Derbyshire.
Over 20,000 hectares of this can be divided up into the north, west and south estates.
The remaining land is in smaller packets, occupied mostly for operational (waste and
water treatment and storage assets) and office sites across all of Yorkshire. The
landscape area falls into the populated part of the Dark Peak and the Yorkshire
Southern Pennine Fringe National Character Areas. The proposed landscape area is
about 122km2 and centred on High Bradfield. The boundary has been developed
through discussions with partners and local people and stretches from Langsett
3

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
Reservoir and the Little Don valley in the north, to Redmires Reservoirs and the Rivelin
valley in the south and from the moorland slopes and watershed in the west to the
River Don valley and urban fringe in the east. The western margin includes the Dark
Peak Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protected Area and Special Area
of Conservation and so its role as a buffer, in the context of the Lawton Review ‘Making
Space for Nature’, is critical. Yorkshire Water’s South Estate amounts to approximately
3,000 hectares. The area runs from Langsett Woods in the north of the area to
Redmires in the south.
The sites can essentially be divided into two types;
Wooded valleys surrounding reservoirs
Exposed open heather moorland at an altitude of 350-400m
3.0 Recorded information
Information on each tree was recorded electronically to include
Location by GPS
Species
Girth
Local or historic name
Public accessibility
Tree form, e.g. coppice, stump, maiden, pollard
Whether the tree was standing, fallen, alive, dead
Location type, e.g. woodland, field, hedgerow, garden etc.
Presence of fungi
Presence of birds, bats
Presence of tree invertebrates
Presence of tree epiphytes e.g. moss, lichen, ferns
Tree condition e.g. decaying wood in crown, hollowing trunk
Tree threats e.g. soil compaction, cultivation, grazing, vandalism
Tree protection, e.g. fencing, TPO
Photograph, usually but not always taken
4.0 Survey Results
Because of the environment and possibly tree felling work to convert what would have
been woodland to farmland and tree felling to create space for the reservoirs,
opportunities for Ancient and Veteran trees are limited. Notable trees are more
common due as much to a combination of the location as much as the size and age of
the tree itself.
4

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
Due to the subjective nature of what may be considered “Ancient, Veteran and
Notable” trees everyone’s interpretation of the results may be slightly different. The
results are intended as a guide as to what trees are present within the property to help
manage trees long term. Of the 49 trees identified, none were considered to be
“Ancient”, 40 were considered “Notable” and 9 were considered “Veteran”.
Site Ancient Veteran Notable
Agden 1 2
Broomhead
Dale Dike 1
Damflask 7
Langsett 1 1
Midhope
More Hall 1 6
Redmires 1
Rivelin
Strines 1
Thurgoland
Underbank 5 22
TOTALS 0 9 40
The greatest concentration of recorded trees is at Underbank reservoir with 22 Notable Beech
trees and 5 Veteran Beech trees. All of these are generally in good condition with Low or
Medium risk.
The Individual tree results can be found on the attached Excel spreadsheet.
5.0 Recommendations
The only trees, woodland that would require work in the medium term is “Oak Wood” at
Underbank, this 1.2 ha Beech woodland is in decline and to help ensure its long term existence
needs fencing to exclude livestock and under planting with Beech.
See Appendix 3 for maps and photos.
5

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
Appendix 1 Site Location Map
6

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
Appendix 2 Detailed Site Maps
7

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
8

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
9

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
10

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
11

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
12

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
Appendix 3 “Oak Wood”
13

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
15

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
16

”Ancient & Veteran tree survey; Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Area
17

Appendix 6
Heritage Assessment including
Woodland Archaeology

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Report prepared by:
ECUS Ltd.
Brook Holt
3 Blackburn Road
Sheffield
S61 2DW
0114 266 9292
October 2017

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
ECUS Ltd
Report to:
Report Title:
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakelands – Archaeological Desk Based Assessment
Revision: v.2
Issue Date: October 2017
Report Ref: Project No. 10056
Originated By:
Reviewed By:
Alex Cassels
Assistant Heritage Consultant Date: 05/07/2017
Approved By:
James Thomson
Senior Heritage Consultant Date: 31/07/2017
Paul White
Head of Heritage Date: 31/08/2017
Prepared by:
ECUS Ltd.
Brook Holt
3 Blackburn Road
Sheffield
S61 2DW
0114 2669292
The report and the site assessments carried out by ECUS on behalf of the client in accordance with the agreed terms of
contract and/or written agreement form the agreed Services. The Services were performed by ECUS with the skill and
care ordinarily exercised by a reasonable Environmental Consultant at the time the Services were performed. Further,
and in particular, the Services were performed by ECUS taking into account the limits of the scope of works required by
the client, the time scale involved and the resources, including financial and manpower resources, agreed between
ECUS and the client.
Other than that expressly contained in the paragraph above, ECUS provides no other representation or warranty
whether express or implied, in relation to the services.
This report is produced exclusively for the purposes of the client. ECUS is not aware of any interest of or reliance by any
party other than the client in or on the services. Unless expressly provided in writing, ECUS does not authorise, consent
or condone any party other than the client relying upon the services provided. Any reliance on the services or any part of
the services by any party other than the client is made wholly at that party’s own and sole risk and ECUS disclaims any
liability to such parties.
This report is based on site conditions, regulatory or other legal provisions, technology or economic conditions at the
time of the Service provision. These conditions can change with time and reliance on the findings of the Services under
changing conditions should be reviewed.
ECUS accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of third party data used in this report.
ii

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Executive Summary
Ecus Ltd were commissioned by Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust in June 2017
to prepare an archaeological desk-based assessment of the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape (hereafter ‘the survey area’), centred on National Grid Reference 426122,
392739.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust have been granted initial approval for a
Heritage Lottery Fund grant to set up a ‘Landscape Partnership’ aimed at protecting
and improving the unique ‘Sheffield Lakeland’ area to the west of Sheffield. This study
forms part of an initial data gathering phase and aims to synthesise the available
archaeological and historical information for the area in order to facilitate and inform
future work.
This initial desk-based assessment has considered evidence for past activity recorded
by Historic England, SYSMR, DHER and the Historic Environment Character of the
area (SYAS 2013). This has allowed a broad overview of the heritage resources
recorded within the study area. A thematic approach has been utilised in order to
highlight opportunities to enhance current knowledge of the history and archaeology of
the survey area. The themes have been selected through an analysis of the SMR and
HER date in combination with the Historic Environment Character (HEC) of the survey
area as identified within the South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation
Project. Accordingly, the recorded heritage assets have been divided into the eight
following themes:
• Prehistoric
• Findspots
• Water Management
• Industry
• Transport
• Land Use
• Settlement
• Military
The overall significance of the Sheffield Lakeland is as follows:
• A landscape that comprises a wealth of diverse and extensive heritage
assets that include a wide range of elements of the historic environment that
includes archaeological remains, historic buildings and settlements, and
historic landscapes.
• The historic environment ranges in date from the early prehistoric period,
through the Romano-British and medieval periods, to the post-medieval and
modern eras.
• • The high significance of some of these heritage assets is reflected in
their statutory designation of national importance (listed buildings and
scheduled monuments).
• • The historic environment reflects the continuity and change across the
survey area which has been influenced by the management of water,
whether for settlement, industry or creation of reservoirs.
• • The potential for further research to reveal heritage of at least regional
importance relating to the historic settlement and local vernacular, historic
routeways, land use, industrial remains, military and water management.
iii

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
English Heritage’s Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance (Historic England
2008) provides a meaningful framework with which to assess the relative significance
of the archaeological and historic resource. Employing the terminology from this
document, the survey area and its heritage components can be considered in terms of
the four distinct values of historical, evidential, aesthetic and communal. The following
exercise employs the theory from the ‘Conservation Principles’ to group together the
historic environment themes of the survey area into the four values. The lists are not
exhaustive but are meant to be illustrative and can be added to.
Historical Value
• Survival of well preserved prehistoric remains that include Scheduled
Monuments.
• Creation, design and planning of the reservoirs within the landscape and
displacement of historic settlement, transport and land use.
• Built heritage remains relating to industrial heritage.
• Land use reflecting changes in unenclosed and enclosed land as well as
historical woodland areas.
• Survival of well preserved medieval and post-medieval buildings, especially
historic farmsteads
Evidential Value
• Distribution of prehistoric findspots indicating the extent of prehistoric
activity across the landscape
• Landscape of past human activity represented by find spots and stray finds
from the Romano-British to modern era.
• Construction of reservoirs and associated construction infrastructure
(temporary construction camps)
• Archaeological remains relating to industrial processes or extraction and
interaction with water management
• Potential for archaeological remains to survive relating to modern era
military remains and the defence of Britain
Aesthetic Value
• Creation of water bodies through dams and reservoirs within the landscape
and how the landscape is now experienced.
• Historic land use and landscape character linked to topography produces a
fortuitous aesthetic of upland areas, steep valleys and rural agrarian
landscapes on the edge of a major conurbation.
• The local vernacular of building materials in rural settlement and rural
settlement pattern.
Communal Value
• Creation of water bodies within the landscape that are valued by people as
a source of relaxation or interaction with the landscape.
• Historic settlements are still centres of communities whether villages,
hamlets or farmsteads
• Association of ‘living’ or social history with historic environment such as
military remains.
The principal research questions and/or activities identified comprise the following:
• Contribute to an understanding of the earliest areas of human activity in the
survey area, what form that activity took, and potentially highlight the routes
iv

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
by which these people moved through the area during the prehistoric
periods;
• Combine findspot data with monuments of known dates in order to
potentially assist in the identification of new sites;
• Understand how water management has changed the landscape, alongside
the reasons and agents for that change;
• The role of industry within the development of the Sheffield Lakelands
landscape, including the metalworking industries and other less studied
trades;
• A focus on the extraction sites within the survey area to establish patterns of
mineral exploitation;
• Establish the routes of historic transport links, their development,
infrastructure and change within the landscape;
• The development of land divisions and use within the landscape and a
recognition of its impact on local communities;
• Undertake thematic studies which seek to establish and contrast the
character, form and use of built form within the survey area; and
• Archival and field studies to highlight the extent of modern military
landscapes within the survey area.
v

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Background ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Survey Area ............................................................................................... 1
1.3 Aims and Objectives .......................................................................................... 1
2. Methodology .................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Standards .......................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Scope of Assessment ........................................................................................ 3
2.3 Assessment of Significance ............................................................................... 3
3. Historic Environment Baseline ....................................................................... 5
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Chronology ........................................................................................................ 5
3.3 Historic and Archaeological Baseline ................................................................. 6
Prehistoric ....................................................................................................... 6
Findspots ........................................................................................................ 7
Water Management ......................................................................................... 8
Industry ........................................................................................................... 8
Transport......................................................................................................... 9
Land Use....................................................................................................... 10
Settlement ..................................................................................................... 11
Military .......................................................................................................... 12
4. Statement of Significance ............................................................................. 13
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Thematic Statements of Significance and Potential Further Studies ................ 13
Prehistoric ..................................................................................................... 13
Findspots ...................................................................................................... 14
Water Management ....................................................................................... 14
Industry ......................................................................................................... 15
Transport....................................................................................................... 16
Land Use....................................................................................................... 16
Settlement ..................................................................................................... 17
Military .......................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Overall Statement of Significance .................................................................... 18
4.4 Values of the Sheffield Lakelands .................................................................... 18
Historical Value ............................................................................................. 18
Evidential Value ............................................................................................ 19
Aesthetic Value ............................................................................................. 19
Communal Value ........................................................................................... 19
5. Conclusions ................................................................................................... 20
5.1 Summary ......................................................................................................... 20
6. References ..................................................................................................... 21
6.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................... 21
Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Routeways ...................................................................... 23
Appendix 2: Gazetteer of Cruck-framed Buildings ................................................. 25
vi

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Illustrations ............................................................................................................... 31
vii

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Figures
Figure 1: Sheffield Lakeland Location
Figure 2: Designated Heritage Assets
Figure 3: Historic Environment Character
Figure 4: Prehistoric Heritage Assets
Figure 5: Prehistoric findspots by period
Figure 6: Prehistoric occupation evidence
Figure 7: Findspots by period
Figure 8: Water body character areas
Figure 9: Extractive and industrial character areas
Figure 10: Industrial heritage assets
Figure 11: Industrial heritage assets by function
Figure 12: Transport heritage assets
Figure 13: Extract from Dickinson's Map of the West Riding of Yorkshire, 1750
Figure 14: Extract from Jeffreys' Map of the West Riding of Yorkshire, 1771
Figure 15: Enclosed, Unenclosed and woodland character areas
Figure 16: Land use heritage assets
Figure 17: First Edition Ordnance Survey
Figure 18: Settlement character areas
Figure 19: Settlement heritage assets
Figure 20: Cruck-framed buildings
Figure 21: Military heritage assets
viii

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
1. Introduction
1.1 Project Background
1.1.1 Ecus Ltd were commissioned by Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust in June
2017 to prepare an archaeological desk-based assessment of the Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape (hereafter ‘the survey area’), centred on National Grid
Reference 426122, 392739.
1.1.2 Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust have been granted initial approval for a
Heritage Lottery Fund grant to set up a ‘Landscape Partnership’ aimed at
protecting and improving the understanding of the unique ‘Sheffield Lakeland’
area to the west of Sheffield. This study forms part of an initial data gathering
phase and aims to synthesise the available archaeological and historical
information for the area in order to facilitate and inform future work.
1.2 The Survey Area
1.2.1 The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape (Figure 1) is located to the west of the city of
Sheffield and stretched from the western outskirts of the city in the east to the
Peak District National Park in the west and from Langsett in the north to the
Redmires Reservoirs in the south. The survey area covers an area of
approximately 12,250 hectares.
1.2.2 The landscape of the survey area contains several reservoirs, established during
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in order to meet the requirements for
drinking water within the expanding city. The western portion of the survey area
is located within the moorlands which characterise the east of the Peak District
National Park. From the moorlands flow numerous streams which run through
steep, narrow valleys towards the main rivers within the survey area: the Don,
the Loxley and the Rivelin.
1.2.3 The principal settlements within the survey area are Stocksbridge in the north,
Oughtibridge, Bradfield and the western outskirts of the city of Sheffield in the
southeast of the survey area.
1.2.4 The underlying geology of the survey area is divided between two principal
bedrock groups. The west of the survey area is mapped as mudstone, sandstone
and siltstone of the Millstone Grit Group with the east of the survey area mapped
as mudstone, siltstone and sandstone of the Pennine Lower Coal Measures
Formation (British Geological Survey 2017).
1.3 Aims and Objectives
1.3.1 The purpose of this archaeological desk-based assessment is to determine, as
far as is reasonably possible from existing records, an understanding of the
historical environment resource in order to formulate:
• An assessment of the chronological and thematic range of known heritage
assets within the survey area;
• An assessment of the significance of the known or predicted heritage
assets considering their archaeological, historic, architectural and artistic
interests; and
1

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
• Proposals for further archaeological investigation within a programme of
research.
2

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
2. Methodology
2.1 Standards
2.1.1 This assessment is undertaken in accordance with:
• The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists' Standard and Guidance for
historic environment desk based assessment (CIfA, December 2014).
• Planning Practice Guidance Conserving and enhancing the historic
environment (6th March 2014), published by the Department for
Communities and Local Government.
• Historic England's Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning
Notes (2015a-c).
2.2 Scope of Assessment
2.2.1 The initial step of the heritage assessment process is the identification of known
heritage assets within the survey area. This is informed through a desk-based
study of the known heritage assets within the study area and a defined buffer
zone.
2.2.2 The spatial scope of the assessment was defined by a 1 km buffer zone around
the Sheffield Lakeland area to inform the archaeological context of the survey
area and to ensure that relevant heritage assets within close proximity to the
survey area were included. These study areas were agreed with the South
Yorkshire Sites and Monument Record (SYSMR) and the Derbyshire Historic
Environment Record (DHER).
2.2.3 The following sources were consulted to inform the presence of heritage assets
within the study area, and to form a baseline for the assessment of their
significance:
• National heritage datasets including The National Heritage List for England
(NHLE), Images of England, PastScape, Viewfinder, NMR Excavation
Index, and Parks and Gardens UK.
• Local heritage datasets held by the SYSMR and DHER
• Historic manuscripts and maps held at Sheffield Archives and Sheffield
Local Studies Library; and
• Relevant primary and secondary sources including published and
unpublished archaeological reports relating to excavations and
observations in the area around the application area were studied.
2.3 Assessment of Significance
2.3.1 The significance of heritage assets is defined in terms of their value to this and
future generations because of their heritage interest, deriving not only from their
physical presence, but also from their setting. Based upon Historic England’s
Conservation Principles (2008) the significance of a heritage assets is described
as being a combination of Historical, Evidential, Aesthetic and Communal
Values:
3

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
• Historic(al) Value: ‘Value deriving from the way in which past people,
events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the
present’.
• Evidential Value: Value deriving from the potential of a place to yield
evidence about past human activity’.
• Aesthetic Value: Value deriving from the way in which people draw
sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place’.
• Communal Value: Value deriving from the meanings of a place for the
people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience
or memory’
2.3.2 The overall significance of a heritage asset is the sum of its heritage values,
expressed within this report as national, regional or local.
4

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
3. Historic Environment Baseline
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 The following section identified the known and potential heritage assets present
within the study area, compiled from sources listed in Section 2.
3.1.2 Designated heritage assets are referenced by their National Heritage List for
England (NHLE) entry number and depicted on Figure 2. The undesignated
heritage assets are referred to the preferred reference number assigned by the
SYSMR and DHER respectively.
3.1.3 A total of 816 recorded heritage assets are present within the survey area and its
buffer which includes 18 Scheduled Monuments and 283 Listed Buildings. These
are provided as a separate gazetteer provided in Microsoft Excel.
3.1.4 The aim of this section is not to give a detailed chronological discussion of the
archaeological resource within the survey area but to identify the key themes
identified within the data and highlight the significance of each theme in shaping
the landscape of the Sheffield Lakeland. A brief chronological overview of the
development of the survey area is provided in order to give background context
to the thematic study which follows.
3.2 Chronology
3.2.1 The survey area has produced extensive evidence for a long history of
occupation, with every period from the Mesolithic to the present day represented
within the SYSMR and DHER data. It has been suggested for the Upper Derwent
Valley, located to the west of the survey area, that the Mesolithic represents the
first period of regular human activity within the wider landscape (Bevan 2004: 5,
2007: 10; Hey 2014: 23). There is no archaeological evidence for activity
predating the Mesolithic within the survey area whilst the subsequent periods of
prehistory are well represented by findspots and monuments such as barrows,
cairns and earthworks.
3.2.2 There is some evidence for Romano-British activity within the survey area with
the route of a Roman road, running between the fort of Navio (Brough on Noe,
Derbyshire) to the west and Templeborough to the east, located within the
southern portion of the study area. Romano-British industrial activity is best
represented by the site of the quernstone quarry at Wharncliffe (Scheduled
Monument; NHLE: 1004802) located in the northeast of the study area to the
east of the River Don.
3.2.3 There is very little documentary or archaeological evidence for early medieval
activity in and around Sheffield (Hey 2003b: 25). Evidence of occupation in
South Yorkshire is limited and has been principally reliant on the analysis of
place names such as Ecclesfield located to the east of the survey area and
meaning ‘open land near a Romano-British Christian church’ (Mills 2011: 170).
Despite this, there is a small amount of archaeological evidence suggesting early
medieval occupation within the survey area such as the tenth century Bradfield
Cross (SYSMR: 00146/01).
3.2.4 It is likely that some form of settlement was present at Bradfield prior to the
Norman Conquest and that the entry of Hallam within Domesday is a reference
5

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
to the whole area of Hallamshire (Hey 2003a: 29; Hey 2003b: 22-3). The vast
majority of the survey area was located within the chapelry of Bradfield, which
was within the parish of Ecclesfield during the medieval period, and formed part
of the area known as Hallamshire, along with the chapelry of Sheffield and
Ecclesfield parish itself (Hey 2003a: 30). The majority of the major foci of
settlement within the survey area at Bradfield, Langsett and Stannington had
been established by the end of the twelfth century (Hay 2003b: 26-7). The
medieval period also provides the earliest known evidence of water power being
utilised within the survey area as is shown by the corn mill at Low Bradfield
(SYSMR Ref: 01642/01).
3.2.5 The post-medieval period saw the continued increased use of water power along
the rivers within the survey area, especially along the routes of the Rivelin and
Loxley rivers in the southeast. The landscape also went through significant
changes with the enclosure of the moors at the end of the eighteenth and
beginning of the nineteenth centuries. The landscape was further changed
through the creation of reservoirs throughout the survey area in order to provide
drinking water to the expanding industrial city of Sheffield from the 1830s into the
early twentieth century.
3.3 Historic and Archaeological Baseline
3.3.1 The quantity of heritage assets recorded by the SYSMR and DHER within the
study area offers the opportunity to provide a thematic consideration of the
development of the landscape and heritage interest of the Sheffield Lakeland
survey area. The themes have been selected through an analysis of the SMR
and HER date in combination with the Historic Environment Character (HEC) of
the survey area as identified within the South Yorkshire Historic Environment
Characterisation Project (SYAS 2013: 579-687; Figure 3). Accordingly, the
recorded heritage assets have been divided into the eight following themes:
• Prehistoric
• Findspots (post-prehistoric)
• Water Management
• Industry
• Transport
• Land Use
• Settlement
• Military
3.3.2 The discussion of each theme below does not aim to be a comprehensive, indepth
study but an overview of current knowledge drawn from the SYSMR,
DHER, South Yorkshire Historic Environment Characterisation project, historic
mapping and secondary sources. The aim of each overview is to provide a
baseline to identify potential future studies work.
Prehistoric
3.3.3 The SYSMR and DHER record a total of 257 individual records dating from the
prehistoric periods (Figure 4). The majority of these are individual findspots of
one or more artefacts whilst the remainder are monuments such as barrows,
6

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
cairns and earthworks. The earliest evidence for human activity within the study
area dates to the Mesolithic period and it has been suggested that the change in
climate following the end of the last ice age allowed for the first systematic
exploitation of the landscape. Environmental evidence suggests that the
landscape was relatively quickly reforested following the end of the last ice age
(Hey 2014: 23).
3.3.4 Several previous studies have examined the prehistoric evidence from the
survey area within larger projects. A study of evidence for early prehistoric
discoveries within South Yorkshire has been undertaken (Grassam and Weston
2014) which identified activity along each of the river systems. A survey of
prehistoric activity within the Don Valley, from source to sea, has also been
undertaken and identified over 1200 sites, comprising findspots and monuments,
within the study area (Cockrell 2016).
3.3.5 The prehistoric heritage assets within the survey area can be divided into
findspot evidence, which largely comprise chance finds, and occupation
evidence. A total of 210 of the prehistoric records are findspots (Figure 5).
These findspots are situated throughout the survey area although these are
concentrations on the moorlands in the west of the study area. It is likely that the
high concentration of artefacts in these locations is partly a product of differential
recovery patterns following erosion or moorland fires, but it is possible that a
further study of the distribution of findspots may reveal further information of
patterns of prehistoric activity within the study area.
3.3.6 Occupation evidence from the prehistoric periods (Figure 6) include seven
Scheduled Monuments and comprises ring cairns (NHLE: 1010769, 1017667), a
cairnfield (NHLE: 1018039), a field system (NHLE: 1017833), a barrow cemetery
(NHLE: 1018590), earthwork (NHLE: 1017508) and a stone circle (NHLE:
1016623). There are further undesignated heritage assets recorded within the
survey area and buffer zone which include possible hut circles, earthworks,
enclosures and field systems. Similar to the findspot evidence, there is a
concentration of evidence for prehistoric activity in the west of the survey area
within the moorlands. It is likely that the lack of subsequent development in these
areas has allowed a greater proportion of the prehistoric remains to survive. The
quantity and quality of prehistoric remains within these areas allow for further
study into prehistoric activity within the survey area.
Findspots
3.3.7 This category comprises individual findspots of one or more artefacts which postdate
the prehistoric periods. The SYSMR and DHER record a total of 62
findspots of artefacts dating from the Romano-British period or later (Figure 7).
These include 26 Romano-British, 1 early medieval, 10 medieval and 6 postmedieval
finds. There are 17 findspots of unknown date with the majority being
undiagnostic worked flints. The findspots are distributed relatively evenly across
the study area although there are noticeable concentrations within the Bradfield
and Stocksbridge and the western outskirts of Sheffield.
3.3.8 It is likely that the distribution of findspots is a result of differential recovery within
the survey area. However, although findspot data is a result of chance finds, the
patterns of recovery do offer the potential to provide insights into distributions of
artefacts and possible foci of past activity particularly for periods for which there
is currently limited information.
7

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Water Management
3.3.9 Water management is used here to refer to the damming of the waterways within
the survey area from the mid-nineteenth century in order to form reservoirs for
the provision of drinking water for Sheffield. This theme covers the reservoirs
themselves and the associated infrastructure recorded by the SYSMR
(Figure 8). Other water management features used for industrial purposes,
including weirs, dams and goits for water wheels, have been included within the
industry theme.
3.3.10 The water supply to Sheffield has been an issue since the sixteenth century
when Barker’s Pool was established within the centre of the post-medieval town
(Hey 2005: 39). Following the expansion of the early eighteenth century town,
further reserves of water were required and the initial reservoirs, known as the
White House Dams were established to the west of the River Don at the
intersection of White House Lane and Infirmary Road (Sheffield Waterworks
1948: 16-17). Further small-scale reservoirs were established at Crookesmoor in
the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century prior to the formation of the
Sheffield Waterworks in 1830.
3.3.11 The reservoirs within the survey area were established from the mid-nineteenth
century on a larger scale than those that had come before. The initial reservoirs
were established at Redmires from 1836 and Rivelin in 1848. The second phase
comprised the Bradfield reservoirs of Agden, Strines, Damflask and Dale Dyke,
which were constructed in the second half of the nineteenth century (Binnie
1981: 283-285). The remaining reservoirs in the Ewden Valley and along the
Little Don were established during the early twentieth century.
3.3.12 The SYSMR only records two heritage assets associated with water
management: an early twentieth century water filtration building at Bradfield
(SYSMR Ref: 5680) and a pair of eighteenth century water troughs (SYSMR Ref:
03692/01), which until the early twentieth century were the principal water supply
for the village of Nether Midhope.
3.3.13 The establishment of the reservoirs within the survey area has had a significant
impact on the landscape and has played a major role in the history of the area.
The most notable is the failure of the Dale Dyke Dam in March 1864 which
resulted in the Sheffield Flood and the death of 240 people (Amey 1974). The
dam was rebuilt further up the valley and the line of the former embankment is
now marked by a series of stones.
3.3.14 There is considerable scope for future work into the water management history
of the survey area. It is anticipated that this work could include surveys
establishing the infrastructure associated with the reservoirs and an investigation
of the social impact of the establishment of the reservoirs.
Industry
3.3.15 This theme encompasses the manufacturing of goods and materials, the
associated infrastructure particularly with reference to water power, and
extraction sites. The HEC records areas which are currently classified as either
of an industrial or extractive character (Figure 9). Current industrial character
areas are located along the River Don in Stocksbridge, Oughtibridge, and
Hillsborough. The SYSMR and DHER record a total of 138 heritage assets
associated with industrial activity within the study area (Figure 10). These
8

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
records include five Scheduled Monuments and five Listed Buildings, including
the Grade II* Listed Low Matlock Rolling Mill (NHLE: 1132839).
3.3.16 The importance of water power within the history of post-medieval industry in the
Sheffield area has been well established (Ball et al 2006) and the distribution of
industrial sites within the survey area illustrates the importance of the Rivelin,
Loxley and Don valleys as power sources during this period. Although Sheffield
is best known for the metalwork trades, which are well represented within the
identified industrial sites within the survey area, there are several other industries
represented within the heritage assets, including paper mills, corn mills, pottery
workshops and glassworks (Figure 11).
3.3.17 The majority of the identified industrial sites are of a post-medieval date.
However, there is evidence for a much longer history of industrial activity within
the study area. An example of Romano-British industrial activity is provided by
the quern workings on Wharncliffe Rocks (Scheduled Monument; NHLE:
1004802, Pearson and Oswald 2000) whilst medieval water power is
demonstrated by the site of the Bradfield Corn Mill (SYSMR Ref: 01642/01).
There is scope for a detailed study into the chronological development of
industry within the survey area.
3.3.18 The natural topography and geology of the survey area provides relatively easily
accessible mineral resources which have been exploited since at least the
Romano-British period. The bedrock within the study area has provided stone for
a variety of uses such as millstones, grinding wheels and building stone. Further
natural resources include coal for which there is some limited evidence of small
scale extraction, including bell pits located (DHER ref: 11374) in the southwest of
the study area. The history of extraction within the survey area offers an
opportunity for further research into patterns of extraction and transport links.
Transport
3.3.19 The transport theme comprises the evidence for previous and extant routeways
running through the study area and their associated infrastructure. There are a
total of 51 heritage assets recorded by the SYSMR and DHER associated with
transport and this includes a total of 34 Grade II Listed guide stoops, mile posts
and bridges (Appendix 1, Figure 12).
3.3.20 For much of its history, Sheffield had relatively poor transport connections and by
the beginning of the eighteenth century the town was on neither a navigable river
nor a major thoroughfare (Hey 2005: 99). The first map of the region to show the
major roads is Morden’s map of the West Riding dating to 1701, which shows
both Rotherham and Doncaster located on major north-south routes whilst
Sheffield lies isolated to the west. This was partly due to the prevailing
topography with the moorlands and river valleys providing a significant obstacle
to travellers.
3.3.21 Despite this, there were several routes across the moorlands and the major
historic routeways crossing the Peak District have been identified (Dodd and
Dodd 1980). For example, the purported route of the Roman road (SYSMR Ref:
4914) leading from the Roman fort of Navio in the west to Templeborough runs
across the southern portion of the study area.
3.3.22 During the medieval and early post-medieval periods the major routes leading
west from Sheffield were packhorse roads across the moors which were used to
9

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
transport raw materials and the products of Sheffield’s metal trades. In the early
nineteenth century two routes within the survey area became turnpike roads, the
modern A57 run by the Sheffield and Glossop Trust, and the A616 run by the
Wadsley, Langsett and Sheffield Trust. A third turnpike road along the route of
the modern A625 ran to the south of the study area.
3.3.23 Beyond these major routes were several smaller trackways which would have
linked the settlements within the survey area. The earliest map which shows
some of these routes in Dickinson’s map of the West Riding of Yorkshire dating
from 1750 (Figure 13) whilst further routes are shown on the 1771 Jeffreys’ Map
of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Figure 14). These maps along with the
associated infrastructure such as guide stoops and mile posts would act as a
baseline for the mapping of post-medieval routes within the survey area.
3.3.24 The route of the Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne and Manchester Railway runs
along the eastern boundary of the survey area from Sheffield to Deepcar before
continuing to Penistone. The line was constructed in the mid-nineteenth century.
The only railway line which runs into the survey area is an extant branch line
running to the steelworks at Stocksbridge which was constructed at the end of
the nineteenth century.
Land Use
3.3.25 Land use is here defined as the agricultural land, woodland and moorland within
the survey area. The HEC shows that the majority of the study area is currently
defined as woodland, enclosed land and unenclosed land (Figure 15) apart from
the concentrations of settlement and industrial character areas on the northern
and eastern fringes of the study area. The land use within the study area is
broadly characterised as unenclosed moorland in the west with a band of
agricultural land to the east with woodland within the river valleys. The SYSMR
and DHER record a total of 23 heritage assets have been identified relating to
land use (Figure 16).
3.3.26 The survey area would have been largely unenclosed moorland and woodland
with areas of agricultural land surrounding the principal areas of settlement for
much of its history. A recreated map redrawn from notes made for a seventeenth
century map shows the survey area around the year 1637. The majority of the
landscape is shown as moorland with small fields located surrounding the areas
of small scale settlement (Scurfield 1986: 156).
3.3.27 The landscape of the survey area was significantly altered by the Enclosure Acts
of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The enclosure act for
Bradfield was passed in 1801 with the enclosure award dated to 1826. By the
publication of the first edition of the Ordnance Survey for Yorkshire in the 1850s
(Figure 17) the formerly open land had been enclosed and the moorlands had
been brought under private ownership. These moorland estates were being used
for game shooting by the end of the nineteenth century as shown by grouse
shooting butts (SYSMR Ref: 4891) and water troughs (SYSMR Ref: 03871/01).
Within the Peak District the increased control over the landscape during the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century led to the right to roam movement in the
1930s and eventually the establishment of the National Park.
3.3.28 The enclosed land is not just a product of the early nineteenth century enclosure
as fields would have been enclosed piecemeal throughout the post-medieval
period. A study of the distribution of pre-parliamentary enclosure could identify
10

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
remnants of the medieval and early post-medieval land use within the survey
area. Similarly, the identified woodland character areas are a product of both
ancient woodland and post-medieval plantations.
Settlement
3.3.29 The current settlement character areas are concentrated in the southeast and
northeast of the survey area (Figure 18). These areas of settlement comprise
the northwest outskirts of Sheffield and Oughtibridge to the southeast, and
Stocksbridge in the northeast of the survey area. There are other smaller areas
of settlement such as Bradfield, Midhopestones and Bolsterstone located
throughout the survey area. The SYSMR and DHER record a total of 253
heritage assets which have been characterised within the settlement theme
(Figure 19). This includes 244 Listed Buildings and 3 Scheduled Monuments.
3.3.30 There is some Romano-British settlement evidence within the northeast of the
study area, including at Finkle Street (Scheduled Monument; NHLE: 1004801).
The location of Romano-British settlement evidence is in proximity to the
extensive Romano-British quarrying activity at Wharncliffe Rocks. Evidence for
early medieval settlement is limited to the location of Anglo-Saxon crosses such
as at Bradfield (SYSMR Ref: 00146/01).
3.3.31 Settlement within the survey area during the medieval and early post-medieval
periods was in keeping with the rural character of the landscape. This is
demonstrated by the large number of agricultural buildings recorded by both the
SYSMR and DHER from these periods. For example, a total of 93 cruck-framed
buildings which include farmhouses, cottages and barns are recorded within the
study area, and include a Grade II* Listed Building and 16 Grade II Listed
Buildings (Appendix 2, Figure 20). The distribution of these buildings illustrate
the settlement patterns during the medieval and early post-medieval periods with
the majority of settlement located in the central and eastern portions of the study
area away from the moorlands in the west, although there is a distinct cluster of
medieval buildings located around the central western area of Agden and Dale
Dike reservoirs.
3.3.32 The later post-medieval and modern records within the settlement theme
demonstrate the expansion of Sheffield westwards into the survey area and the
development of Stocksbridge as a major settlement during the second half of the
nineteenth century following the establishment of industry along the River Don.
3.3.33 In addition to the chronological development of the settlement patterns, the
recorded heritage assets allow further insights into the forms of settlement within
the study area. For example, elite settlement is represented by the medieval
castles at Bradfield (Scheduled Monuments; NHLE: 1013217, 1017612) and
Bolsterstone (SYSMR Ref: 00143/01), whilst the development of religion can be
traced through buildings such as the Church of St Nicholas (Grade I Listed,
NHLE: 1192617) and non-conformist Loxley United Reform Church (Grade II*
Listed; NHLE: 1314565).
11

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Military
3.3.34 The SYSMR records 12 military sites within the survey area (Figure 21) which
can be characterised into defensive structures and training features. The training
features, including the Redmires First World War Training Area (Scheduled
Monument; NHLE: 1417488), are all located in the south of the survey area. The
defensive structures are more widely distributed within the survey area. They
include anti-aircraft batteries, ammunition stores and a radar station and the
majority were involved with the defence of Sheffield during the Second World
War. It is considered that there is a potential for similar defensive structures to
exist within the survey area particularly in relation to defending the reservoirs
from bombing raids.
12

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
4. Statement of Significance
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This section provides a brief summary of the heritage values that can be
attributed to the historic environment within the Sheffield Lakelands. Each
identified theme has its own heritage significance which contributes to the overall
importance of the historic environment to the landscape of the survey area.
4.1.2 The heritage assets recorded by the SYSMR and DHER provide a baseline from
which future research topics can be framed. The themes identified in the
previous section represent broad areas of interest within the study area which
would benefit from further research in the future. It is hoped that these research
topics will build upon existing knowledge and help to fill gaps within the current
data.
4.2 Thematic Statements of Significance and Potential Further Studies
Prehistoric
Significance
4.2.1 The study area contains a significant amount of evidence for prehistoric activity
and this provides historical and evidential values to the Sheffield Lakeland.
Evidence for prehistoric occupation, land use and burial is recognised as being
of national significance and are designated as scheduled monuments. The well
preserved remains provide historic value to the landscape which allows past
aspects of life to be connected to the present through the distribution and
location of prehistoric remains within the landscape.
4.2.2 Furthermore, evidential value is provided by the majority of the recorded heritage
assets comprising findspots of one or more artefacts. The potential of remains of
the prehistoric period is of regional, if not national, importance due to what the
historic environment could teach us about the nature and extent of early human
activity in northern England.
Potential Further Studies
4.2.3 It is considered that future work could expand on research undertaken within
previous large-scale landscape studies (Grassam and Weston 2014; Cockrell
2016) in order to gain a more detailed understanding of prehistoric activity within
the survey area. It is anticipated that further study of the findspot data
supplemented by systematic field surveys may highlight chronological patterns or
currently unknown activity sites. Research may include activities such as field
surveys, field walking and condition surveys of the known prehistoric features
within the landscape.
4.2.4 The outcome from this work would contribute to our understanding of the earliest
areas of human activity in the survey area, what form that activity took, and
potentially highlight the routes by which these people moved through the area.
Interpretation of this period for many sites is difficult due to their limited visual
presence in the present day. As such it is considered that the principal benefit
from further research in this area, to assist with public dissemination, would be to
focus on identifying linkages through the landscape to areas of extant earthworks
13

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
which can then become foci for interpreting this period of the past.
4.2.5 Through a detailed study it may be possible with the application of LiDAR to
identify settlement or other features within the wider landscape or in areas that
are difficult to survey, for instance woodland.
Findspots
Significance
4.2.6 The SYSMR and DHER record the location of several findspots of artefacts that
range in date from the Romano-British period through to the post-medieval
period. It is considered findspots are generally of local importance that holds
evidential value to reveal places of past human activity.
Potential Further Studies
4.2.7 Similarly to the prehistoric data, it is considered that further study of these
objects in combination with data from other sources such as the Portable
Antiquities Scheme or artefacts held within museum archives may highlight
previously unknown foci of activity.
4.2.8 This research would assist in the identification of new sites, which could be
investigated through community projects, or used to tie together a stronger
narrative of occupation within the landscape.
Water Management
Significance
4.2.9 The construction of the dams in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries had a
significant impact on the landscape of the survey area and the establishment of
reservoirs within former river valleys are now a key characteristic of the historic
landscape of the area. The heritage significance of water management remains
within the Sheffield Lakeland is multi-layered. They have the potential to provide
historical value through the way the dams were planned, designed and created;
evidential value through how the reservoirs were constructed and the resulting
changes to the historic land use and settlement pattern; aesthetic and communal
values of how the water bodies are now part of the experience of the landscape.
4.2.10 Currently there are very few associated heritage assets recorded by the SYSMR
within the study area. Due to the heritage values that can be assigned to the
dams and reservoirs it is considered water management is an underrepresented
resource within the historic environment record but are of, at least,
regional importance.
Potential Further Studies
4.2.11 A field survey to establish the form and nature of associated infrastructure would
assist an appreciation of the engineering involved in the establishment of the
reservoirs. Additionally, it is considered that there is scope for a social history of
the water management within the survey area. This would include an
assessment of the impact of the damming of the river valleys on the local
communities who were already present within the landscape. There is also a
potential for a study on the navvy communities who constructed the dams.
14

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
During the damming of the Upper Derwent Valley, to the west of the survey area,
navvy communities were set up (e.g. Tintown; Robinson 1993: 67) but it is
currently unclear if similar settlements existed within the survey area.
4.2.12 The individual heritage assets associated with water management within the
survey area have a local interest. However, taken as a body of evidence the
wider resource is of regional importance as it is considered that this theme has
one of the strongest potentials for the interpretation of the survey area as it is
pivotal to the story of the Sheffield “lakes”. Understanding how water
management has changed the landscape, alongside the reasons and agents for
that change, can also be brought right up to date in providing a jumping-off point
for exploring the ongoing changes that flood management are driving in the
region today.
Industry
Significance
4.2.13 The Sheffield Lakeland is a landscape that is rich in the remains of industrial
activity. Although the industrial heritage of Sheffield and its surrounding river
network is well documented (e.g. Ball et al 2006) the use of water power in the
landscape, especially in the river valley, for the utilisation of industrial process
should not be understated and is important in terms of historic and evidential
values of the Sheffield Lakelands. Industrial remains are not just limited to the
post-medieval period but stretch back through the medieval period to the
Romano-British era.
4.2.14 A number of industrial assets have been recognised as nationally important
through designation, and the potential of the wider resource is of regional, if not
national, importance in relation to the role of industry in the development of
Sheffield as an international producer of metalwares.
Potential Future Studies
4.2.15 It is considered that there are several opportunities for further research and the
consolidation of existing knowledge. For example, the presence of industrial sites
along the river courses is well known but surveys to establish the current
condition of these assets may yield further information to add to current levels of
knowledge. Similarly, the importance of metalworking within the survey area has
been established but the SYSMR records other forms of industry operating
alongside the metal trades. A study of the paper mills within the Sheffield area
has been undertaken (Schmoller 1992) and this could act as a framework for
studies into the other industrial processes undertaken within the study area.
Further research could focus on the extraction sites within the study area to
establish patterns of mineral exploitation.
4.2.16 Industry was historically very closely linked to its landscape as it focused
primarily on available natural resources, and the exploration of industrial sites
and home industries has a great potential for tying communities, and their
livelihoods, to the environment in which they lived.
15

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Transport
Significance
4.2.17 The heritage assets recorded by the SYSMR and DHER allow for the major
historical routes through the survey area to be established. However it is
considered there is an opportunity to expand on this baseline. It is considered
that the resource has historic and evidential values that are of regional interest
due to the potential for informing on inter-regional movement which can be linked
to settlement pattern and industry.
Potential Future Studies
4.2.18 The routes of former packhorse roads and trackways within the survey area can
be established through an analysis of the extant infrastructure such as bridges,
mile posts and guide stoops and the evidence provided by historical mapping.
Further research topics could include the impact of the establishment of the
reservoirs on former routes through the survey area, and identifying the
promoters of the various turnpikes to reveal how their interests affected the
routes.
4.2.19 Further research into transport infrastructure also has a clear benefit in terms of
potential future interpretation and increasing the communal value of the transport
network by providing linkages between sites within the study area and into the
Sheffield Lakelands from the surrounding areas.
Land Use
Significance
4.2.20 The history of land use is an important element in how the survey area is
experienced and appreciated, and the historic landscape character of the area
has strong aesthetic and communal values. This is represented by the interplay
between the highland zone to the west and the agrarian settled landscape to the
east that extends to the western periphery of Sheffield. Continuity and change of
land use across the survey area also provides historical and evidential values to
appreciating and understanding how the landscape has been used in the past
and how its use in the past now provides a sense of place within the region. It is
considered that the wider resource is of least local, if not regional, importance.
Further research has the potential to provide an overarching backdrop to
interpretation, from which specific sites of interest can be identified for further
focus.
Potential Future Studies
4.2.21 There are several topics for studying the patterns of land use within the survey
area. For example, a study of the impact of the Enclosure Acts on common land
and the subsequent opening up of the landscape through the twentieth century
‘right to roam’ movement would provide a social history of the moorland within
the west of the survey area. The Enclosure Acts were not the initial stage of
enclosure and it is considered that an analysis of the existing field systems within
the survey area, based on the existing HEC and evidence for pre-enclosure use
of the landscape, would provide a history of land division and use.
4.2.22 Finally, there are several areas of woodland which are a product of post-
16

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
medieval plantation or ancient woodland. There is an opportunity to study the
development of woodland management within the survey area to further
understand how woodland was used as a resource to support early industry,
land use and settlement.
Settlement
Significance
4.2.23 Built heritage in the form of the local vernacular, existing village centres and the
distribution and density of settlement pattern are the most obvious evidence for
settlement activity in the landscape; whilst archaeological remains can provide
further insights into earlier settlement patterns. These elements when combined
provide historic, evidential, aesthetic and communal values in relation to
settlements within the survey area.
4.2.24 Medieval settlement was largely rural and there are a significant number of
cruck-framed buildings of medieval and post-medieval date within the survey
area. The survey area contains numerous designated heritage assets of national
importance and it is considered that taken as a whole the wider resource is of
regional interest.
Potential Further Studies
4.2.25 There is currently limited record of Romano-British and early medieval settlement
within the survey area. It is considered that further study into these periods may
enhance current knowledge of the development of the settlement pattern within
the Sheffield Lakeland area.
4.2.26 It is anticipated that a survey of cruck-framed buildings could act as an initial
phase of a broader study of the vernacular architecture of the survey area. In
addition the identification of where local building material was sourced, in
particular building stones, would be of benefit for future conservation work.
4.2.27 Further studies could focus on elite forms of settlement, such as the castles and
manor houses located within the study area, and the development and
distribution of religious buildings within the survey area.
4.2.28 Whilst further research into the origins of settlements in the survey area could be
of benefit, they are broadly known and additional value lies in thematic studies
that seek to establish and contrast the character, form and use of development
between areas. This would enable a regional view of the area to be taken, which
could be compared to the character area assessments undertaken for the Peak
District National Park.
Military
Significance
4.2.29 The heritage assets linked with military activity within the survey area are
associated with training and defence. It is considered that the identified World
War One training trenches provide a tangible link to the past and as such provide
historic and evidential values as well as a degree of communal value in relation
to international events. The national importance of this resource is recognised
by its designation as a Scheduled Monument. During World War Two, defensive
17

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
structures were constructed in order to protect the reservoirs from attack
(Sheffield Waterworks 1948: 34).
Potential Further Studies
4.2.30 The value of the First World War training camps could be enhanced by further
archival and fieldwork research. Some evidence for defensive World War II
structures are recorded by the SYSMR but it is anticipated that further field
surveys within the study area may record the location of further, as yet
unidentified, defensive structures. It is anticipated that this resource would be of
local or regional importance.
4.3 Overall Statement of Significance
4.3.1 The overall significance of the Sheffield Lakeland is as follows:
• A landscape that comprises a wealth of diverse and extensive heritage
assets that include a wide range of elements of the historic environment
that includes archaeological remains, historic buildings and settlements,
and historic landscapes.
• The historic environment ranges in date from the early prehistoric period,
through the Romano-British and medieval periods, to the post-medieval
and modern eras.
• The high significance of some of these heritage assets is reflected in their
statutory designation of national importance (listed buildings and scheduled
monuments).
• The historic environment reflects the continuity and change across the
survey area which has been influenced by the management of water,
whether for settlement, industry or creation of reservoirs.
• The potential for further research to reveal heritage of at least regional
important relating to the historic settlement and local vernacular, historic
routeways, land use, industrial remains, military and water management.
4.4 Values of the Sheffield Lakelands
4.4.1 English Heritage’s Conservation Principles Policies and Guidance (English
Heritage 2008) provides a meaningful framework with which to assess the
relative significance of the archaeological and historic resource. Employing the
terminology from this document, the survey area and its heritage components
can be considered in terms of the four distinct values of historical, evidential,
aesthetic and communal. The following exercise employs the theory from the
‘Conservation Principles’ to group together the historic environment themes of
the survey area into the four values. The lists are not exhaustive but are meant
to be illustrative and can be added to.
Historical Value
• Survival of well preserved prehistoric remains that include Scheduled
Monuments.
• Creation, design and planning of the reservoirs within the landscape and
displacement of historic settlement, transport and land use.
18

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
• Built heritage remains relating to industrial heritage.
• Land use reflecting changes in unenclosed and enclosed land as well as
woodland areas.
• Survival of well preserved medieval and post-medieval buildings, especially
historic farmsteads
Evidential Value
• Distribution of prehistoric findspots indicating the extent of prehistoric
activity across the landscape
• Landscape of past human activity represented by find spots and stray finds
from the Romano-British to modern era.
• Construction of reservoirs and associated construction infrastructure
(temporary construction camps)
• Archaeological remains relating to industrial processes or extraction and
interaction with water management
• Potential for archaeological remains to survive relating to modern era
military remains and the defence of Britain
Aesthetic Value
• Creation of water bodies through dams and reservoirs within the landscape
and how the landscape is now experienced.
• Historic land use and landscape character linked to topography produces a
fortuitous aesthetic of upland areas, steep valleys and rural agrarian
landscapes on the edge of a major conurbation.
• The local vernacular of building materials in rural settlement and rural
settlement pattern.
Communal Value
• Creation of water bodies within the landscape that are valued by people as
a source of relaxation or interaction with the landscape.
• Historic settlements are still centres of communities whether villages,
hamlets or farmsteads
• Association of ‘living’ or social history with historic environment such as
military remains.
19

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
5. Conclusions
5.1 Summary
5.1.1 This initial desk-based assessment has considered evidence for past activity
recorded by Historic England, SYSMR, DHER and the Historic Environment
Character of the area (SYAS 2013: 579-692). This has allowed a broad overview
of the heritage resources recorded within the study area. A thematic approach
has been utilised in order to highlight opportunities to enhance current
knowledge of the history and archaeology of the survey area. The potential
future projects could utilise a combination of desk-based, archival and field
studies to achieve their aims.
5.1.2 The Sheffield Lakeland survey area contains numerous sites which have been
recognised as nationally important and have consequently been designated as
Scheduled Monuments or Listed Buildings. The wider heritage resource within
the survey area has the potential to inform local, regional and national research
agendas.
5.1.3 The principal research questions and/or activities identified comprise:
• Contribute to an understanding of the earliest areas of human activity in the
survey area, what form that activity took, and potentially highlight the
routes by which these people moved through the area during the
prehistoric periods;
• Combine findspot data with monuments of known dates in order to
potentially assist in the identification of new sites;
• Understand how water management has changed the landscape,
alongside the reasons and agents for that change;
• The role of industry within the development of the Sheffield Lakelands
landscape, including the metalworking industries and other less studied
trades;
• A focus on the extraction sites within the survey area to establish patterns
of mineral exploitation;
• Establish the routes of historic transport links, their development,
infrastructure and change within the landscape;
• The development of land divisions and use within the landscape and a
recognition of its impact on local communities;
• Undertake thematic studies which seek to establish and contrast the
character, form and use of built form within the survey area; and
• Archival and field studies to highlight the extent of modern military
landscapes within the survey area.
20

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
6. References
6.1 Bibliography
Amey, G. 1974. The Collapse of the Dale Dyke Dam. London: Cassel
Ball, C., Crossley, D. and Flavell, N. 2006. Water Power on the Sheffield Rivers.
(Second Edition) Sheffield: South Yorkshire Industrial History Society
Bevan, B. 2004. The Upper Derwent: 10,000 years in a Peak District valley. Stroud:
Tempus
Bevan, B. 2007. Sheffield’s Golden Frame: The Moorland Heritage of Burbage,
Houndkirk and Longshaw. Sigma Press
Binnie, G.M. 1981. Early Victorian Water Engineers. London: Thomas Telford Ltd
British Geological Survey 2017. Geology of Britain Viewer. Available
at http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html [accessed on 06/07/2017]
The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) 2014. Standard and Guidance for
historic environment desk-based assessment.
Cockrell, T.F. 2016. The Don Valley in Prehistory: Upland and Lowland
Developments and Interpretations. University of Sheffield: Unpublished PhD Thesis
Dodd, A.E and Dodd, E.M. 1980. Peakland Roads and Trackways. Ashbourne:
Moorland Publishing
Grassam, A. and Weston, P. 2014. Enhancing the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic
Records of the South Yorkshire SMR. Morley: Archaeological Services WYAS.
Hey, D. 2003a. Historic Hallamshire. Ashbourne: Landmark.
Hey, D. 2003b. Medieval South Yorkshire. Ashbourne: Landmark.
Hey, D. 2005. A history of Sheffield. Lancaster: Carnegie.
Hey, D. 2014. A History of the Peak District Moors. Barnsley: Pen & Sword.
Historic England 2008. Conservation Principles. London
Historic England 2015a. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning
Note 1 – The Historic Environment in Local Plans.
Historic England 2015b. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning
Note 2 – Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment.
Historic England 2015c. Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning
Note 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets.
Mills, A.D. 2011. A Dictionary of British Place Names. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
21

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Pearson, T. and Oswald, A. 2000. Quern Manufacturing at Wharncliffe Rocks,
Sheffield, South Yorkshire. York: English Heritage Archaeological Investigation
Report Series AI/20/2000
Robinson, B. 1993. Walls across the valley: the building of the Howden and
Derwent Dams.
Schmoller, T. 1992. Sheffield Papermakers: Three centuries of papermaking in the
Sheffield area. Wylam: Allenholme Press.
Scurfield, G. 1986. Seventeeth Century Sheffield and its Environs. Yorkshire
Archaeological Journal 58: 147-172.
Sheffield Waterworks. 1948. City of Sheffield Water Supply: a Brief History of The
Waterworks Undertaking. Sheffield: Sheffield Waterworks.
South Yorkshire Archaeology Service (SYAS). 2013. South Yorkshire Historic
Environment Characterisation Project. Available
at http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/syorks_hlc_2012/index.cfm
[accessed on 06/07/2017]
22

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Appendix 1: Gazetteer of Routeways
Source SMR/HER reference Name Period NGR
X
Y
DHER 11347 Alleged section of Roman road, Stanage Edge, Outseats Romano-British 423450 384906
SYSMR 5392 Possible section of Roman Road near Redmires reservoir Romano-British 427196 385899
SYSMR 04517/01 Possible Roman Road south of Gin Piece Plantation Romano-British 423100 385300
SYSMR 4914 Roman Road; Brough to Doncaster via Templeborough Romano-British 447434 396290
DHER 11348 Long Causey, Stanage Edge, Outseats Medieval 423241 384618
SYSMR 04280/01 Badger Lane Packhorse Road, Langsett Medieval 419555 400945
SYSMR 04287/01 Stoneycroft Lane Packhorse Road, Stocksbridge Medieval 423000 398500
SYSMR 04287/02 Judd Field Lane Packhorse Road, Bradfield Medieval 423787 400352
SYSMR 4883 Post-Medieval Braided Routeway on Whitwell Moor Medieval 425500 397004
SYSMR 4889 Medieval or Post-Medieval Hollow ways on Barnside Moor Medieval 422326 397903
SYSMR 4896 ?Medieval or Post-Medieval Braided Hollow way near
Moorside Cottage
Medieval 424140 395444
DHER 11349 Road, Stanage Edge, Outseats Post-medieval 423461 384546
SYSMR 03176/01 Post-Medieval Packhorse Road, adjacent to the modern
road, Bradfield
SYSMR 4882 Post-Medieval Terraced Trackway to the east of Ewden
Brows
SYSMR 4885 Post-Medieval Terraced Trackways between Ewden Brows
and Ewden Bridge
Post-medieval 423280 399470
Post-medieval 425785 396585
Post-medieval 424925 396784
23

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
SYSMR 4893 Post-Medieval Quarry Pits and Terraced Trackway west of
Mortimer Road
SYSMR 4895 Post-Medieval Terraced Trackway/Hollow way on White
Carr
Post-medieval 423904 397533
Post-medieval 421987 396314
SYSMR 4898 Duke's Road 19th Century Terraced Trackway Post-medieval 421650 394629
SYSMR 4902 Gritstone Quarries north of Hoyles Farm Post-medieval 423876 390829
24

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Appendix 2: Gazetteer of Cruck-framed Buildings
Name Designation NHLE Reference SYSMR Reference NGR
X
Y
Medieval Cruck Building, Fair House Farm, Bradfield Grade II* Listed 1132863 01353/01 426020 391840
Medieval Cruck barn at Watson House Farm,
Stocksbridge
Grade II Listed 1132799 01323/01 427615 397987
Cruck Barn, Low Hall, Onesacre, Bradfield Grade II Listed 1314542 00775/01 429700 393400
Manor House (known as Hawksworth House), Upper
Midhope, Bradfield
Dwarriden Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, Ewden,
Bradfield
Medieval Cruck Barn, Alderman's Head Cote,
Langsett
Grade II Listed 1192641 00778/01 421450 399660
Grade II Listed 1132876 01130/01 425835 395615
Grade II Listed 1151080 01307/01 422330 400850
Cruck Building, Snowden, Hunshelf Grade II Listed 1151117 01312/01 426200 400600
Post-Medieval Cruck Barn at Wellbank farm, Upper
Midhope, Bradfield
Medieval to Post-Medieval Period Cruck barn at The
Oaks, Midhopestones, Bradfield
Grade II Listed 1132831 01313/01 421700 399640
Grade II Listed 1286669 01316/01 423970 399330
Pot House Farm Cottages, Stocksbridge Grade II Listed 1193179 01322/01 426627 398000
The Royd Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, Stocksbridge Grade II Listed 1193193 01325/01 427940 397356
Edge End Cruck Barn, Stocksbridge Grade II Listed 1132806 01331/01 427873 396480
Peas Bloom Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, Stocksbridge Grade II Listed 1132802 01333/01 428451 396221
Medieval Cruck Barn at Fairhurst Farm, Ewden,
Bradfield
Grade II Listed 1132871 01336/01 427830 395630
25

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Old Hall Farmhouse, Old Hall Farm, Bradfield Grade II Listed 1132870 01341/01 429080 395110
Medieval? Cruck Barn, Woodseats Farm, Bradfield Grade II Listed 1192742 01343/01 424912 392464
Cruck Barn at Upper Hoyles Farm, Holes Wood,
Bradfield
Grade II Listed 1132868 01345/01 423703 390368
Cruck Barn of Unknown Date, Bowsen, Bradfield Grade II Listed 1286629 01347/01 426455 393146
Medieval to Post-Medieval Cruck Building at
Oughtibridge Hall, Bradfield
Grade II Listed 1132856 01362/01 431300 393310
Cruck Building, Hall Broom, Dungworth Grade II Listed 1192426 01377/01 427040 389677
Medieval Cruck Barn, Tom Hill, Bradfield Grade II Listed 1132842 01378/01 427770 389980
Cruck House, Tom Hill, Bradfield Grade II Listed 1132843 01379/01 427782 389959
Medieval Cruck barn, Sykehouse, Bradfield Grade II Listed 1281549 01380/01 427890 389620
Pond Farmhouse Medieval Cruck Built House,
Stannington, Bradfield
Cruck barn, Grange Farm, Stumperlowe Hall Road,
Fulwood
Cruck built house, Grange Farm, Stumperlowe Hall
Road, Fulwood
Grade II Listed 1132860 01390/01 430627 388609
Grade II Listed 1247416 01395/01 430800 385998
Grade II Listed 1247404 01396/01 430812 386014
Dean Head Farmhouse, Hunshelf Grade II Listed 1151115 01454/01 426920 400197
Medieval Cruck barn, Throstle Nest, Bradfield Grade II Listed 1132819 01592/01 428930 389722
Windmill Farm Post-Medieval Cruck Barn,
Stocksbridge
Windhill Farm Post-Medieval Farm Building,
Stocksbridge
Medieval Cruck Barn at Briers House, Dungworth,
Bradfield
Grade II Listed 1193158 03631/02 424590 398422
Grade II Listed 1132804 03631/03 424609 398433
Grade II Listed 1132869 01350/01 427902 390452
26

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Dike Side Farmhouse (demolished) Cruck Building,
Nether Midhope, Bradfield
Site of Cruck Framed Building (demolished),
Hawksworth's Cote, Bradfield
00764/01 423840 399670
00765/01 421200 399900
Green Farm Post-Medieval Barn, Stocksbridge 00777/01 425300 398400
Medieval Cruck Buildings, Nethergate, Stannington 01178/01 430030 388140
Walker House Cruck Barn, Bradfield 01185/01 425060 391890
Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, Upper Hoyles Farm,
Bradfield
01189/01 423890 390500
Medieval Cruck Building, Dike side, Langsett 01305/01 420300 400300
Medieval to Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, Mateo Farm,
Langsett
01306/01 421200 400400
Alderman's Cote Cruck Barn, Langsett 01308/01 422820 400700
Handbank Medieval to Post-Medieval Period Cruck
Barn, Langsett
Stanleys Farm Medieval to Post-Medieval Period
Cruck Barn, Langsett
Hobsons Farm Medieval to Post-Medieval Period
Cruck Barn, Langsett
?Medieval Cruck Cottage at Wellbank Farm, Upper
Midhope, Bradfield
Medieval to Post-Medieval Period Cruck Barn at
Town Head Farm, Upper Midhope, Bradfield
01309/01 423200 400100
01310/01 424500 400400
01311/01 424500 400400
01314/01 421690 399660
01315/01 421400 399700
Medieval Cruck Barn (demolished), Hunshelf 01319/01 425000 399300
Site of Medieval Cruck Built House, Wigtwizzle,
Bradfield
01320/01 424800 395700
27

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Site of Medieval Cruck Barn, Wigtwizzle, Bradfield 01321/01 424800 395700
Site of a Medieval Cruck-built house, Penn-Nook,
Deepcarr, Stocksbridge
01324/01 428200 397300
Medieval Cruck House, Deepcar, Stocksbridge 01326/01 427999 397291
Medieval Cruck Barn, Deepcar, Stocksbridge 01327/01 428100 397800
Medieval Cruck Barn, Deepcar, Stocksbridge 01329/01 428500 397800
Medieval Cruck Building, Stocksbridge 01330/01 427700 396300
Medieval Cruck Barn, Sunny Bank, Stocksbridge 01332/01 428210 396330
Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, New Mill Bridge,
Stocksbridge
Medieval Cruck Barn at Raynor House (also Reynah
or Renold house), Ewden Valley, Bradfield
Medieval Cruck Cottage at Fairhurst Farm, Ewden,
Bradfield
Medieval Cruck Barn at Thorn House, Ewden,
Bradfield
Medieval to Post-Medieval Period Barn and Cow
House, More Hall, Stocksbridge
Medieval Cruck Built Cottage (known as Whitley's
House), High Lee Farm, Bradfield
01334/01 427300 396000
01335/01 427460 395630
01337/01 427850 395620
01338/01 428600 395300
01339/01 429227 395809
01340/01 429060 395070
Medieval Cruck Built Cart Shed, Lee Farm, Bradfield 01342/01 429090 395130
Medieval Cruck Barn, Hallfield, Badfield 01344/01 423420 391500
Medieval Cruck Barn, Swinnock Hall, Wharncliffe
Side, Bradfield
Cruck Barn of Unknown Date, Tophill Farm,
Onesacre, Bradfield
01346/01 429188 394653
01348/01 429760 393420
28

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Cruck Byre at Lowhall (Tophill Farm), Onesacre,
Bradfield
01348/02 429760 393450
Medieval Cruck Barn, Damflask, Bradfield 01349/01 427700 391100
Cruck Barn at Sunnyside Farm, Bradfield 01351/01 425870 392840
Medieval Cruck Barn, Worrall, Bradfield 01366/01 430570 392100
Site of cruck barn, Underhill Farm, Birley Carr 01367/01 432500 392200
Medieval Cruck Barn and 17th Century Cruck
Cottage, Hall Broom, Bradfield
Possible Site of a Cruck Barn, Barker House, Hill
Top, Bradfield
01376/01 427040 389780
01381/01 428000 389100
Medieval Cruck House, Townhead, Bradfield 01382/01 429660 388360
Site of a cruck barn (West), Wiggins Farm, Crimicar
Lane
01383/01 429700 386200
Site of cruck barn, Wiggins Farm, Crimicar Lane 01384/01 429700 386200
Cruck barn, Fulwood 01385/01 429500 385300
Cruck cottage, Bassett Houses, Fulwood 01386/01 428321 384613
Cruck building, Walkley 01388/01 432800 389100
Medieval Cruck Barn, Well House Farm, Bradfield 01389/01 430140 388240
Site of Medieval Cruck Building, Knowle Top,
Stannington
Medieval Cruck building at Parkside Farm,
Stannington, Bradfield
01391/01 430400 388600
01392/01 430550 388150
Site of cruck built cottages, Orchard Place, Walkley 01393/01 433100 388700
Site of cruck barn, Bell Hagg, Crosspool 01394/01 431500 387400
Stumperlowe cottage, cruck house, Fulwood 01397/01 430800 385800
29

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Stumperlowe cottage barn, cruck barn, Fulwood 01397/02 430800 385800
Clough Fields Farm, cruck barn, Crosspool 01398/01 431953 387650
Site of Medieval Cruck Built Gatehouse, Bradfield
Church
Site of Medieval Cruck Building, Swinglee Ford,
Bradfield
01442/01 426700 392600
01448/01 426700 387600
Cruck barn, Bennet Grange, Fulwood 01588/01 428960 385310
Medieval Cruck Barn, Cote House Farm, Bradfield 01590/01 427680 394100
Medieval Cruck Barn, Hill Farm, Bradfield 01591/01 428260 388680
Medieval Cruck Building, Uppergate Road, Bradfield 01593/01 429990 388540
Medieval Cruck House, 102 Uppergate, Stannington,
Bradfield
Late Medieval or Post-Medieval Cruck Barn,
Stocksbridge
01594/01 430000 388520
03586/01 428820 397900
Ruined Cruck Framed House, Bradfield 03783/01 430000 388500
30

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Illustrations
31

±
Legend
400000
Sheffield Lakeland
Peak District National Park
390000
Kilometers
0 1 2 3 4 5
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakelands
420000
430000
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Figure 1:
Sheffield Lakeland Location
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: July 2017 Scale: 1:100,000 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/1

#
#
#
##
#
###
1012158
#
# #
#
#
1132872
#
# #
#
#
#
# # # 1020626
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
1004801
#
##
#
1004803 # #
1004802
#
#
#
#
1010769
#
# #
1018590#
#
# # # #
#
#
1132870
#
#
#
#
#
1018039 1017508
#
1017667
#
#
#
#
1017833
#
1191806 #
#
#
# ## #
#
#
#
# 1192617
#
1013217
#
#
#
1017612
#
1132863
#
#
# #
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
##
# #
1314565 # #
## #
#
# #
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
1132839
# #
#
# #
1019857 # # 1004804
#
#
#
# #
#
# #
#
# # ## #
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
###
#
#
# # #
##
#
# ##
# # #
#
#
##
1016623
#
#
1417488
#
# #
#
#
1007052
±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
Designated Heritage Assets
Scheduled Monument
# Grade I Listed Building
# Grade II* Listed Building
# Grade II Listed Building
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 2:
Designated Heritage Assets
(based on HE data)
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/2

±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
Historic Environment Character
Commercial
Communications
Enclosed Land
Extractive
Industrial
Institutional
Ornamental, Parkland and Recreational
Residential
Unenclosed Land
Water Bodies
Woodland
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 3:
Historic Environment Character
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/3

±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
Heritage assets by period
Mesolithic
Neolithic
Bronze Age
Iron Age
Prehistoric
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 4:
Prehistoric Heritage Assets
(based on HE, SYSMR and DHER data)
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/4

±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
Heritage assets by period
Mesolithic
Neolithic
Bronze Age
Iron Age
Prehistoric
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 5:
Prehistoric findspots by period
(based on HE, SYSMR and DHER data)
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/5

±
Legend
Enclosures
Sheffield Lakeland
Ewden Beck and
Broomhead Dyke
Prehistoric Features
Study Area
Heritage assets by period
Mesolithic
Mesolithic
Chiping Floors
Enclosures
Neolithic
Bronze Age
Barrows and
Cairnfields
Iron Age
Prehistoric
Cairns
Enclosures
Hut Circles
and Barrows
Kilometers
Barrows
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Occupation Evidence and
Ash Cabin Stone Circle
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 6:
Prehistoric activity by period
(based on HE, SYSMR and DHER data)
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/6

±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
Heritage Asset by Period
Romano-British
Early medieval
Medieval
Post-medieval
Multiperiod
Unknown
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 7:
Findspots by period
(based on HE, SYSMR and DHER data)
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/7

±
Water Trough
Legend
Survey Area
Study Area
Heritage Assets by Period
Post-medieval
Modern
Historic Environment Character
Water Bodies
Water Filtration
Building
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 8:
Water bodies recorded by HEC
(based on SYSMR data)
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/8

±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
Historical Environment Character
Extractive
Industrial
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 9:
Extractive and Industrial character areas
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/9

±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
Heritage Assets by Period
Romano-British
Medieval
Post-medieval
Modern
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 10:
Industrial heritage assets
(based on HE, SYSMR and DHER data)
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/10

!(
±
#*
#*
#*
")") #*
#*
#*
#*
")
")
#*
!(
")
")
#*
")
!(
!(
Romano-British
Quarrying
!(
") ")
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
Form of Industrial Activity
" Metals
River Don
5 Extractive
")
#*
#* ")
#*
")
#* ")
")
G
Paper Mill
# Other
Heritage Assets by Period
#*
River Loxley
")
")")
Romano-British
!(
#*") ")
")
#* ")")")")
")
")
!(
GF") ") ") #*")")
")
Medieval
Post-medieval
")
") ")GF") ")") ") #* #* ") ")")")
#*
")")") ") #*#*#*#*")
")
")#*#*")")")
")
#*#*#* ")")")")")")")GFGF GFGFGF ")")") ") ")")") ")")")")")")")")")")") !(
River Rivelin
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 11:
Industrial heritage assets by function
(based on HE, SYSMR and DHER data)
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/11

Packhorse Roads
±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
Heritage Assets by Period
Romano-British
Terraced Trackways
and Hollow Ways
Medieval
Guide Posts
Post-medieval
Bridge
Modern
Post-medieval transport routes
Turnpike Road
Railway
Guide Posts
Bridge
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 12:
Transport heritage assets
(based on HE, SYSMR and DHER data)
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/12

Sheffield Lakeland
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 13:
Extract from Dickinson's Map of
the West Riding of Yorkshire, 1750
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: NOT TO SCALE Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/13

Sheffield Lakeland
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 14:
Extract from Jeffreys' Map of
the West Riding of Yorkshire, 1771
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: July 2017 Scale: NOT TO SCALE Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/14

±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
Historic Environment Character
Enclosed Land
Unenclosed Land
Woodland
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Figure 15:
Enclosed, Unenclosed and woodland
character areas
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/15

±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Romano-British
earthworks
Study Area
Game shooting
infrastructure
Heritage Assets by Period
Romano-British
Medieval
Post-medieval
Unknown
Game shooting
infrastructure
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Sheep husbandry
infrastructure
Post-medieval gardens
and racecourse
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 16:
Land use heritage assets
(based on HE, SYSMR and DHER data)
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/16

±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 17:
First Edition Ordnance Survey
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/17

±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
Historic Environment Character
Commercial
Communications
Institutional
Ornamental, Parkland and Recreational
Residential
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 18:
Settlement character areas
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/18

XW
±
GF GF
GF
GF
XW
XW
GF
^_
GF
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
^_^_
Heritage Assets by Period
GF
XW
XW
GF
XWXW
GF
XW
XW
^_
GF
^_
XW
Romano-British
Early medieval
Medieval
Post-medieval
GF
XW
GF GF
XW
GF ")
GF
GF
XW
XW
XW
Modern
Unknown
Form of Settlement Activity
X
Elite
XW
GF
XW
GF
XWXW
GF GF
GF
")
XW
XW
GF
GF XW
")
")
") ") ")
XW
GF XW
XW
GF
")
")
G
^
Institutional
Deserted Settlement
Rural
" Urban
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
GF
XW
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 19:
Settlement heritage assets
(based on HE, SYSMR and DHER data)
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/19

±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
Study Area
Heritage Assets by Period
Medieval
Post-medieval
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 20:
Cruck-framed buildings
(based on HE, SYSMR and DHER data)
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/20

±
Legend
Sheffield Lakeland
World War II
defensive structures
Study Area
Heritage Assets by Period
Post-medieval
Modern
World War II
defensive structure
Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5
Redmire World War I
Practice Trenches
Redmire Army
and POW Camp
Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right 2017
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakeland
Figure 21:
Military heritage assets
(based on HE, SYSMR and DHER data)
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2017 Licence number 0100031673 Date: August 2017 Scale: 1:75,000 @A3 Drg.Ref: AKC/10056/21

HER/SMR Ref Source
01927/01 SYSMR
01992/01 SYSMR
02279/01 SYSMR
02279/02 SYSMR
02279/03 SYSMR
02352/01 SYSMR
02448/01 SYSMR
02620/01 SYSMR
02870/01 SYSMR
02871/01 SYSMR
02872/01 SYSMR
02873/01 SYSMR
02874/01 SYSMR
02875/01 SYSMR
02876/01 SYSMR
02880/01 SYSMR
02933/01 SYSMR
02936/01 SYSMR
03003/02 SYSMR
03003/02 SYSMR
03004/02 SYSMR
03014/01 SYSMR
03015/01 SYSMR
03017/01 SYSMR
03025/01 SYSMR
03026/01 SYSMR
03041/01 SYSMR
03045/01 SYSMR
03046/01 SYSMR
03076/01 SYSMR
03077/01 SYSMR
03078/01 SYSMR
03079/01 SYSMR
03080/01 SYSMR
03081/01 SYSMR
03082/01 SYSMR
03083/01 SYSMR
03084/01 SYSMR
03085/01 SYSMR
03086/01 SYSMR
03087/01 SYSMR
03088/01 SYSMR
03089/01 SYSMR
03090/01 SYSMR
03091/01 SYSMR
03092/01 SYSMR
03093/01 SYSMR
03094/01 SYSMR
03101/01 SYSMR

03108/01 SYSMR
03115/01 SYSMR
03116/01 SYSMR
03118/01 SYSMR
03124/01 SYSMR
03125/01 SYSMR
03126/01 SYSMR
03130/01 SYSMR
03138/01 SYSMR
03164/01 SYSMR
03168/01 SYSMR
03169/01 SYSMR
03169/01 SYSMR
03171/01 SYSMR
03172/01 SYSMR
03173/01 SYSMR
03177/01 SYSMR
03178/01 SYSMR
03179/01 SYSMR
03180/01 SYSMR
03181/01 SYSMR
03182/01 SYSMR
03183/01 SYSMR
03185/01 SYSMR
03186/01 SYSMR
03187/01 SYSMR
03188/01 SYSMR
03189/01 SYSMR
03190/01 SYSMR
03198/01 SYSMR
03199/01 SYSMR
03200/01 SYSMR
03201/01 SYSMR
03202/01 SYSMR
03203/01 SYSMR
03206/01 SYSMR
03226/01 SYSMR
03234/01 SYSMR
03469/01 SYSMR
03470/01 SYSMR
03646/01 SYSMR
03648/01 SYSMR
03649/01 SYSMR
03651/01 SYSMR
03652/01 SYSMR
03653/01 SYSMR
03654/01 SYSMR
03655/01 SYSMR
03656/01 SYSMR
03657/01 SYSMR

03744/01 SYSMR
03745/01 SYSMR
03747/01 SYSMR
03748/01 SYSMR
04012/01 SYSMR
04044/01 SYSMR
04515/01 SYSMR
04516/01 SYSMR
04164/01 SYSMR
04165/01 SYSMR
04550/01 SYSMR
04551/01 SYSMR
04552/01 SYSMR
04553/01 SYSMR
04554/01 SYSMR
04571/01 SYSMR
01672/01 SYSMR
04586/01 SYSMR
4607 SYSMR
4610 SYSMR
4695 SYSMR
4715 SYSMR
4738 SYSMR
4739 SYSMR
4897 SYSMR
4903 SYSMR
5074 SYSMR
5079 SYSMR
5080 SYSMR
5081 SYSMR
5082 SYSMR
5083 SYSMR
5084 SYSMR
5085 SYSMR
5086 SYSMR
5104 SYSMR
5108 SYSMR
5115 SYSMR
5116 SYSMR
5117 SYSMR
5119 SYSMR
5120 SYSMR
5122 SYSMR
5123 SYSMR
5124 SYSMR
5125 SYSMR
5126 SYSMR
5127 SYSMR
5128 SYSMR
5129 SYSMR

5133 SYSMR
5134 SYSMR
5138 SYSMR
5142 SYSMR
5143 SYSMR
5144 SYSMR
5148 SYSMR
5170 SYSMR
5171 SYSMR
5194 SYSMR
5195 SYSMR
5196 SYSMR
5199 SYSMR
5200 SYSMR
5206 SYSMR
5207 SYSMR
5309 SYSMR
5353 SYSMR
5359 SYSMR
5387 SYSMR
5388 SYSMR
5391 SYSMR
5392 SYSMR
5469 SYSMR
5470 SYSMR
5514 SYSMR
5515 SYSMR
5516 SYSMR
5517 SYSMR
5518 SYSMR
5519 SYSMR
5520 SYSMR
5531 SYSMR
5549 SYSMR
5581 SYSMR
5588 SYSMR
5605 SYSMR
5667 SYSMR
5697 SYSMR
5712 SYSMR
5714 SYSMR
5724 SYSMR
5729 SYSMR
5730 SYSMR
5736 SYSMR
00098/01 SYSMR
00124/01 SYSMR
00136/01 SYSMR
00138/01 SYSMR
00141/01 SYSMR

00143/01 SYSMR
00143/02 SYSMR
00148/01 SYSMR
00149/01 SYSMR
00154/01 SYSMR
00239/01 SYSMR
00240/01 SYSMR
00241/01 SYSMR
00510/01 SYSMR
00522/01 SYSMR
00539/01 SYSMR
00541/01 SYSMR
00545/01 SYSMR
00547/01 SYSMR
00604/01 SYSMR
00605/01 SYSMR
00607/01 SYSMR
00609/01 SYSMR
00610/01 SYSMR
00612/01 SYSMR
00614/02 SYSMR
00625/01 SYSMR
00689/01 SYSMR
00694/01 SYSMR
00753/01 SYSMR
00754/01 SYSMR
00756/01 SYSMR
00764/01 SYSMR
00765/01 SYSMR
00774/01 SYSMR
00775/01 SYSMR
00776/01 SYSMR
00777/01 SYSMR
00778/01 SYSMR
00799/01 SYSMR
00814/01 SYSMR
01118/01 SYSMR
01118/02 SYSMR
01123/01 SYSMR
01130/01 SYSMR
01144/01 SYSMR
01152/01 SYSMR
01166/01 SYSMR
01167/01 SYSMR
01178/01 SYSMR
01179/01 SYSMR
01180/01 SYSMR
01182/01 SYSMR
01184/01 SYSMR
01185/01 SYSMR

01189/01 SYSMR
01190/01 SYSMR
01199/01 SYSMR
01232/01 SYSMR
01305/01 SYSMR
01306/01 SYSMR
01307/01 SYSMR
01307/02 SYSMR
01308/01 SYSMR
01309/01 SYSMR
01310/01 SYSMR
01311/01 SYSMR
01312/01 SYSMR
01313/01 SYSMR
01314/01 SYSMR
01315/01 SYSMR
01315/02 SYSMR
01316/01 SYSMR
01319/01 SYSMR
01320/01 SYSMR
01321/01 SYSMR
01322/01 SYSMR
01323/01 SYSMR
01324/01 SYSMR
01325/01 SYSMR
01326/01 SYSMR
01327/01 SYSMR
01329/01 SYSMR
01330/01 SYSMR
01331/01 SYSMR
01332/01 SYSMR
01333/01 SYSMR
01334/01 SYSMR
01335/01 SYSMR
01336/01 SYSMR
01337/01 SYSMR
01338/01 SYSMR
01339/01 SYSMR
01340/01 SYSMR
01341/01 SYSMR
01342/01 SYSMR
01343/01 SYSMR
01343/02 SYSMR
01344/01 SYSMR
01345/01 SYSMR
01346/01 SYSMR
01346/02 SYSMR
01347/01 SYSMR
01348/01 SYSMR
01348/02 SYSMR

01349/01 SYSMR
01351/01 SYSMR
01353/01 SYSMR
01353/02 SYSMR
01362/01 SYSMR
01366/01 SYSMR
01367/01 SYSMR
01376/01 SYSMR
01377/01 SYSMR
01378/01 SYSMR
01379/01 SYSMR
01380/01 SYSMR
01380/02 SYSMR
01380/03 SYSMR
01381/01 SYSMR
01382/01 SYSMR
01383/01 SYSMR
01384/01 SYSMR
01385/01 SYSMR
01386/01 SYSMR
01388/01 SYSMR
01389/01 SYSMR
01390/01 SYSMR
01391/01 SYSMR
01392/01 SYSMR
01393/01 SYSMR
01394/01 SYSMR
01395/01 SYSMR
01396/01 SYSMR
01397/01 SYSMR
01397/02 SYSMR
01398/01 SYSMR
01442/01 SYSMR
01448/01 SYSMR
01452/01 SYSMR
01453/01 SYSMR
01454/01 SYSMR
01455/01 SYSMR
01458/01 SYSMR
01546/01 SYSMR
01547/01 SYSMR
01588/01 SYSMR
01590/01 SYSMR
01591/01 SYSMR
01592/01 SYSMR
01593/01 SYSMR
01594/01 SYSMR
01621/01 SYSMR
01622/01 SYSMR
01622/02 SYSMR

01622/03 SYSMR
01623/01 SYSMR
01623/02 SYSMR
01623/03 SYSMR
01624/01 SYSMR
01624/02 SYSMR
01624/03 SYSMR
01625/01 SYSMR
01625/02 SYSMR
01625/03 SYSMR
01626/01 SYSMR
01626/02 SYSMR
01626/03 SYSMR
01627/01 SYSMR
01627/02 SYSMR
01627/03 SYSMR
01628/01 SYSMR
01629/01 SYSMR
01630/01 SYSMR
01630/02 SYSMR
01631/01 SYSMR
01631/02 SYSMR
01631/03 SYSMR
01632/01 SYSMR
01632/02 SYSMR
01633/01 SYSMR
01634/01 SYSMR
01634/02 SYSMR
01635/01 SYSMR
01635/02 SYSMR
01636/01 SYSMR
01637/01 SYSMR
01638/01 SYSMR
01638/02 SYSMR
01639/01 SYSMR
01639/02 SYSMR
01639/03 SYSMR
01640/01 SYSMR
01640/02 SYSMR
01640/03 SYSMR
01641/01 SYSMR
01642/01 SYSMR
01643/01 SYSMR
01644/01 SYSMR
01644/02 SYSMR
01646/01 SYSMR
01647/01 SYSMR
01647/02 SYSMR
01647/03 SYSMR
01647/04 SYSMR

01648/01 SYSMR
01649/01 SYSMR
01650/01 SYSMR
01651/01 SYSMR
01652/01 SYSMR
01652/02 SYSMR
01652/03 SYSMR
01653/01 SYSMR
01654/01 SYSMR
01655/01 SYSMR
01656/01 SYSMR
01657/01 SYSMR
01658/01 SYSMR
01660/01 SYSMR
01660/02 SYSMR
01660/03 SYSMR
01661/01 SYSMR
01661/02 SYSMR
01661/03 SYSMR
01661/04 SYSMR
01662/01 SYSMR
01670/01 SYSMR
01671/01 SYSMR
01673/01 SYSMR
01674/01 SYSMR
01675/01 SYSMR
01676/01 SYSMR
01677/01 SYSMR
01678/01 SYSMR
01678/02 SYSMR
01679/01 SYSMR
01679/02 SYSMR
01679/03 SYSMR
01680/01 SYSMR
01681/01 SYSMR
01681/02 SYSMR
01681/03 SYSMR
01907/01 SYSMR
02060/01 SYSMR
02061/01 SYSMR
02176/01 SYSMR
02194/01 SYSMR
02196/01 SYSMR
02201/01 SYSMR
02290/01 SYSMR
02301/01 SYSMR
02304/01 SYSMR
02308/01 SYSMR
02319/01 SYSMR
02836/01 SYSMR

02856/01 SYSMR
02857/01 SYSMR
02862/01 SYSMR
02865/01 SYSMR
02953/01 SYSMR
03003/01 SYSMR
03004/01 SYSMR
03005/01 SYSMR
03006/01 SYSMR
03007/01 SYSMR
03016/01 SYSMR
03095/01 SYSMR
03096/01 SYSMR
03096/03 SYSMR
03097/01 SYSMR
03098/01 SYSMR
03109/01 SYSMR
03137/01 SYSMR
03170/01 SYSMR
03176/01 SYSMR
03191/01 SYSMR
03224/01 SYSMR
03233/01 SYSMR
03541/01 SYSMR
03543/01 SYSMR
03547/01 SYSMR
03586/01 SYSMR
03596/01 SYSMR
03597/01 SYSMR
03603/01 SYSMR
03604/01 SYSMR
03612/01 SYSMR
03613/01 SYSMR
03614/01 SYSMR
03631/01 SYSMR
03631/02 SYSMR
03631/03 SYSMR
03632/01 SYSMR
03635/01 SYSMR
03638/01 SYSMR
03639/01 SYSMR
03640/01 SYSMR
03641/01 SYSMR
03645/01 SYSMR
03650/01 SYSMR
03650/02 SYSMR
03658/01 SYSMR
03658/02 SYSMR
03658/03 SYSMR
03664/01 SYSMR

03678/01 SYSMR
03679/01 SYSMR
03681/01 SYSMR
03687/01 SYSMR
03688/01 SYSMR
03689/01 SYSMR
03692/01 SYSMR
03703/01 SYSMR
03704/01 SYSMR
03711/01 SYSMR
03716/01 SYSMR
03717/01 SYSMR
03718/01 SYSMR
03731/01 SYSMR
3746 SYSMR
03773/01 SYSMR
03774/01 SYSMR
03783/01 SYSMR
03785/01 SYSMR
03786/01 SYSMR
03797/01 SYSMR
03870/01 SYSMR
03871/01 SYSMR
03871/02 SYSMR
03968/01 SYSMR
03969/01 SYSMR
03970/01 SYSMR
03970/02 SYSMR
03971/01 SYSMR
03972/01 SYSMR
03999/01 SYSMR
04011/01 SYSMR
04013/01 SYSMR
04014/01 SYSMR
04045/01 SYSMR
04048/01 SYSMR
04118/01 SYSMR
04119/01 SYSMR
04120/01 SYSMR
04121/01 SYSMR
04122/01 SYSMR
04123/01 SYSMR
04124/01 SYSMR
04125/01 SYSMR
04126/01 SYSMR
04132/01 SYSMR
04142/01 SYSMR
04143/01 SYSMR
04144/01 SYSMR
04145/01 SYSMR

04146/01 SYSMR
04147/01 SYSMR
04152/01 SYSMR
04153/01 SYSMR
04154/01 SYSMR
04156/01 SYSMR
04163/01 SYSMR
04166/01 SYSMR
04213/01 SYSMR
04217/01 SYSMR
04226/01 SYSMR
04238/01 SYSMR
04295/01 SYSMR
04328/01 SYSMR
03631/04 SYSMR
03631/05 SYSMR
03631/06 SYSMR
04359/01 SYSMR
00143/04 SYSMR
04290/01 SYSMR
04280/01 SYSMR
04280/01 SYSMR
04278/01 SYSMR
04239/01 SYSMR
04281/01 SYSMR
04291/01 SYSMR
04287/01 SYSMR
04287/01 SYSMR
04557/01 SYSMR
04394/01 SYSMR
04382/01 SYSMR
04388/01 SYSMR
04131/06 SYSMR
04433/01 SYSMR
04435/01 SYSMR
00145/01 SYSMR
04517/01 SYSMR
04517/01 SYSMR
04534/01 SYSMR
00144/01 SYSMR
00146/01 SYSMR
00147/01 SYSMR
00150/01 SYSMR
00506/01 SYSMR
00507/01 SYSMR
00507/02 SYSMR
00508/01 SYSMR
00509/01 SYSMR
00511/01 SYSMR
00512/01 SYSMR

00513/01 SYSMR
00514/01 SYSMR
00515/01 SYSMR
00523/01 SYSMR
00524/01 SYSMR
00525/01 SYSMR
00526/01 SYSMR
00527/01 SYSMR
00528/01 SYSMR
00529/01 SYSMR
00530/01 SYSMR
00531/01 SYSMR
00532/01 SYSMR
00533/01 SYSMR
00534/01 SYSMR
00535/01 SYSMR
00536/01 SYSMR
00537/01 SYSMR
00538/01 SYSMR
00542/01 SYSMR
00543/01 SYSMR
00544/01 SYSMR
00546/01 SYSMR
00549/01 SYSMR
00601/01 SYSMR
00602/01 SYSMR
00603/01 SYSMR
00606/01 SYSMR
00608/01 SYSMR
00611/01 SYSMR
00613/01 SYSMR
00617/01 SYSMR
00619/01 SYSMR
00620/01 SYSMR
00621/01 SYSMR
00622/01 SYSMR
00623/01 SYSMR
00624/01 SYSMR
00628/01 SYSMR
00629/01 SYSMR
00630/01 SYSMR
00631/01 SYSMR
00632/01 SYSMR
00679/01 SYSMR
00684/01 SYSMR
00685/01 SYSMR
00686/01 SYSMR
00687/01 SYSMR
00688/01 SYSMR
00691/01 SYSMR

00692/01 SYSMR
00693/01 SYSMR
00695/01 SYSMR
00695/02 SYSMR
00696/01 SYSMR
00697/01 SYSMR
00698/01 SYSMR
00143/03 SYSMR
00747/01 SYSMR
00748/01 SYSMR
00800/01 SYSMR
00805/01 SYSMR
00817/01 SYSMR
00851/01 SYSMR
00868/01 SYSMR
00896/01 SYSMR
00897/01 SYSMR
00897/02 SYSMR
00897/03 SYSMR
00897/04 SYSMR
00897/05 SYSMR
00897/06 SYSMR
00898/01 SYSMR
00900/01 SYSMR
00975/01 SYSMR
00976/01 SYSMR
00978/01 SYSMR
00981/01 SYSMR
00982/01 SYSMR
00983/01 SYSMR
01027/01 SYSMR
01028/01 SYSMR
01028/01 SYSMR
01029/01 SYSMR
01041/01 SYSMR
01048/01 SYSMR
01048/02 SYSMR
01068/01 SYSMR
01106/01 SYSMR
01114/01 SYSMR
01120/01 SYSMR
4914 SYSMR
00097/01 SYSMR
04287/02 SYSMR
4632 SYSMR
4650 SYSMR
4652 SYSMR
4663 SYSMR
4729 SYSMR
4766 SYSMR

4849 SYSMR
4850 SYSMR
4881 SYSMR
4882 SYSMR
4883 SYSMR
4884 SYSMR
4885 SYSMR
4885 SYSMR
4885 SYSMR
4885 SYSMR
4885 SYSMR
4885 SYSMR
4885 SYSMR
4885 SYSMR
4885 SYSMR
4886 SYSMR
4887 SYSMR
4888 SYSMR
4889 SYSMR
4890 SYSMR
4890 SYSMR
4891 SYSMR
4892 SYSMR
4893 SYSMR
4894 SYSMR
4895 SYSMR
4895 SYSMR
4895 SYSMR
4896 SYSMR
4898 SYSMR
4899 SYSMR
4901 SYSMR
4902 SYSMR
4904 SYSMR
4906 SYSMR
4907 SYSMR
4908 SYSMR
4909 SYSMR
4921 SYSMR
4980 SYSMR
5362 SYSMR
5527 SYSMR
5542 SYSMR
5547 SYSMR
5549 SYSMR
5550 SYSMR
5666 SYSMR
5680 SYSMR
5732 SYSMR
00137/01 SYSMR

00157/01 SYSMR
00573/01 SYSMR
00614/01 SYSMR
01233/01 SYSMR
01234/01 SYSMR
01350/01 SYSMR
01659/01 SYSMR
02852/01 SYSMR
03184/01 SYSMR
03770/01 SYSMR
04131/01 SYSMR
04434/01 SYSMR

Name
Designation
Undated Carved Stone Head found at Undertofts, Bradfield
Neolithic Flint Scraper found at Undertofts, Bradfield
Anglo-Saxon Clay bead, found in Bradfield
Unidentified Mesolithic Objects, Bradfield
19th Century Clay Pipe Bowl Find, Bradfield
Neolithic Polished Stone Axe and Medieval Pottery, fouind near Gosling Spring, Wortley
Neolithic or Bronze Age Flint Flake Finds, Langsett
Gas Lamp, Mulehouse Road / Stannington View Road, Sheffield
Barbed and Tanged Arrowhead Find, Bradfield
Neolithic Arrowhead and Blade Finds, Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
Flint Leaf-shaped Arrowhead Find, Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
Leaf-shaped Arrowhead found on Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
Barbed and Tanged Arrowhead Find, Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
Two Barbed and Tanged Arrowheads, found on Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
Barbed and Tanged Arrowhead and Blade Finds, Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
Iron Age Bead Find from Sheffield Central
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Bradfield
Moscar Rubbing Stone of Unknown Date, Bradfield
Midhope Pottery Culvert, Bradfield
Midhope Pottery Culvert, Bradfield
Pottery Scatter Associated with Midhope Pottery, Bradfield
Romano-British Pottery Finds, Hussey Hall Oven, Stocksbridge
Mesolithic Flint Scraper found at Hussey Hall Oven, Stocksbridge
Late Medieval Pottery Finds from Sheep Folds, Hussey Hall Oven, Stocksbridge
Post-Medieval Finds from the Demolition of Bradshaw Farm, Langsett
Flint Waste, near Langsett Reservoir, Bradfield
Possible Mesolithic Flint Finds, Bradfield
?Mesolithic Broken Microlith Find, Bradfield
Possible Mesolithic Flint Find, Bradfield
Flint Blades found at Lodge Moor
Possible Mesolithic Flint and Chert Finds, Wyming Brook, Sheffield
Flint Scraper and Utilsed Flake Finds, Sheffield
Flint Core and Waste Lodge Moor
Flint Scrapers and Lithic Waste Finds, Sheffield
Flint Finds, Sheffield
Flint Finds, Sheffield
Undated Flint Waste, Bradfield
Burnt Waste Flint found at Lodge Moor, Sheffield
Waste Chert Flake of Unknown Date, Bradfield
Piece of Flint Waste found at Lodge Moor, Sheffield
Flint Core and Waste Finds, Sheffield
Flint Tools found at Redmires, Sheffield
Flint and Clay Pipe Finds, Bradfield
Flints Tool and Clay Marble Finds, Bradfield
Miscellaneous Finds, Bradfield
Possible Worked Quartz Finds of Unknown Date, Bradfield
Modified Quartzite Pebble Find, Sheffield
Medieval Coin found at Lodge Moor, Sheffield
Mesolithic Flint Blade and Flake Finds, Strines Moor, Bradfield

Flint Implements of Unknown date, Langsett
Various Mesolithic Tool Finds, Bradfield
Unclassified Chert Piece and Flint Flake Finds, Bradfield
Retouched Chert Piece from Moscar, Bradfield
Flint Artefact Finds, Bradfield
Flint Burin and Waste Flake Finds, Hallam, Sheffield
Waste Flint and Sandstone Rubber Finds of Unknown Date, Moscar Cross Farm, Bradfield
Spurious Mesolithic Flint Microlith and Waste Flint Finds, found in Bradfield
Possible Mesolithic Flint Scraper Find, Hallam Moors, Sheffield
Flint Waste Find, Long Causeway, Sheffield
Flint Waste of Unknown Date, Bradfield
Romano-British and Medieval Pottery Scatter, Bradfield
Romano-British and Medieval Pottery Scatter, Bradfield
Post-Medieval Glass Bottle Seal Find, Stocksbridge
Roman Coin Find, Stocksbridge
Lead Token Find, Stocksbridge
Two Undated Millstones found in Bradfield
Flint Blade Find, Stockbridge
Lithic Implements, Clay Pipe and Pottery Finds, Bradfield
Waste Flint and Chert Finds, Bradfield
Prehistoric Flint Arrowhead Find, Bradfield
Flint and Chert Waste and Flake Finds, Bradfield
Flint Flakes of Unknown Date, Bradfield
Flint Waste of Unknown Date, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint and Quartz Finds, Bradfield
Possible Mesolithic Flint Microlith Find, Bradfield
Flint Waste of Unknown Date, Bradfield
Worked Flint Finds of Unknown Date, Bradfield
Flint Scraper of Unknown Date, Bradfield
15th Century French jetton found in churchyard, Bradfield
Flint Scraper Find, Sandygate, Sheffield
Waste Flint Flake Find, Crookes, Sheffield
Unclassified Flint and Bronze Finds, Sandygate, Sheffield
Mesolithic Flint Find, Liberty Hill, Sheffield
Glass Slag found at Sandygate, Sheffield
Axe or Adze Head Find, Crookes, Sheffield
Roman Mortarium found on Wharncliffe Crags, Wortley
Flint Blade of Unknown Date, Bradfield
Retouched Flint Flake Find, Bradfield
Flint Core Find of Unknown Date, Bradfield
?Bronze Age Palstave Find, Stocksbridge
Spindle Whorl Find, Stocksbridge
Cannon Ball Find, Stocksbridge
Flint Scraper Find, Stocksbridge
Undated Flint Scatter, Stocksbridge
Undated Flint Scatter, Stocksbridge
Undated Flint Scatter, Hermit Royd, Stocksbridge
?Neolithic Polished Stone Axe found at Stocksbridge
Bronze Ring Find of Unknown Date, Stocksbridge
Roman Glass bead found at Stocksbridge

Flint Arrowhead of Unknown Date, Bradfield
Flint Arrowhead, Midhope Moor, Bradfield
Grey 'Wolds' Flint found on Midhope Moors, Bradfield
Unpolished Stone Axehead and Pottery Finds, Langsett
Unclassified flint scatter
Scatter of Neolithic Petit Tranchet Arrowheads, Ughill, Bradfield
Microlith found at High Lad Ridge
Hammerstone or Possible Rubbing Stone of Unknown Date found on Ughill Moor, Bradfield
19th Century Signpost, Bradfield
19th Century Signpost, Bradfield
Two
?Bronze Age Barbed and Tanged Arrowhead Find, Bradfield
Neolithic or Bronze Age Microburin Find, Bradfield
Neolithic Flint Thumb Nail Scraper Find, Bradfield
Flint Flake and Blade Finds, Bradfield
19th Century Barn at Holdworth Hall, Bradfield
Wortley Tin Mill
Colmes Mill, Bradfield
Hillsborough Football Ground
Storrs Bridge Pottery Works, Ecclesfield
Bolsterstone Stocks and Whipping Post, Stocksbridge
Two
'H11' Stannington Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery
'H33' Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery, Peat Pits, Bradfield
Chert Artefacts, Bradfield
Flint and Chert Flakes, Bradfield
Hall House ?Post-Medieval Building
Shelter Associated with Gritstone Quarrying
Chert & Flint Working Floor of Mesolithic or Early Neolithic date, Broomhead Moor
Mesolithic flint find, Agden, Bradfield
Mesolithic flint finds, Bradfield
Mesolithic flint find, Brogging Moss, Bradfield
Mesolithic flint finds found during construction of track, Broomhead
Mesolithic Site, Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
Mesolithic Pebble Macehead, Dam Flask, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Finds near Rivelin Dam
Mesolithic Macehead, Wortley
Mesolithic Flint Find, Bailey Hill, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Find, Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
?Mesolithic Chert Find, Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Find, Holling Dale, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Holling Dale Plantation, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Mickleden Edge Moor
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Midhope Moor
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Midhope Moor
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Midhope Moor
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Moscar Cross Field
Mesolithic Flint Find, Pike Lowe
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Strines Moor
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Bradshaw Hill

Mesolithic Flint Finds, Fox Stones, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Fox Stones Moss, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Find, Langsett Moor
Mesolithic Flint Finds, South of High Neb
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Hallam Moor
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Hallam Moor
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Ewden Water Treatment Works
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Langsett Reservoir (Site 5)
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Langsett Reservoir
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Mickleden Edge
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Mickleden Edge
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Mickleden Edge
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Hingcliff Common
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Rocher Flat
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Hingcliffe Hill, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Hingcliffe Hill
Mesolithic or Neolithic Flint Finds, Underbank Reservoir, Hunshelf
School Road Methodist Chapel, Crookes, Sheffield
Site of Ranmoor Hall of Residence
Earthworks associated with the 'Sham Fight' of 1876
Earthworks and trenches, Wyming Brook, Sheffield
Cup-Marked Stone found at Redmires, Sheffield
Possible section of Roman Road near Redmires reservoir
Site of late/post- medieval blacksmith's workshop, Bolsterstone
Remains from a late medieval stone building, Bolsterstone, Sheffield
Sewer gas destructor lamp, north-west end, Mooroaks Road
Sewer gas destructor lamp opposite junction with Glebe Road, School Road
Sewer gas destructor lamp, junction with Stannington View Road, Mulehouse Road, Crookes
Sewer gas destructor lamp, Toftwood Road, Crookes
Sewer gas destructor lamp, Stothard Road, Sheffield
Sewer gas destructor lamp, junction with Portsea Road, Oakland Road, Sheffield Two
Sewer gas destructor lamp, Rural Lane, Sheffield
The Towers, Sandygate
2Two
Tapton Court, Ranmoor, Sheffield.
Carved Stone, Rivelin Valley, Sheffield
Industrial period pottery, Houndkirk Moor, Sheffield
Approximate site of Wharncliffe deserted medieval settlement
Post-medieval to industrial period fulling mill and later cotton and wire mill, Stocksbridge
Iron Age or Romano-British Beehive Querns, Langsett Reservoir
19th to early 20th century mine workings, Deepcar, Sheffield
Sykehouse, 18th-19th century agricultural and metalworking site
Stanage Pole, boundary marker and possible guide pole, Sheffield
Hollin Busk coal and ganister mine, later 19th century, Deepcar
19th century file workshop, Wharncliffe Side, Bradfield
Possible Bronze Age Ring cairn, Wharncliffe Heath, Sheffield
Bar Dyke Linear Earthwork, Bradfield
Scheduled Monument
Bailey Hill Motte and Bailey Castle, Bradfield
Scheduled Monument
Ewden Beck Stone Circle or Ring Cairn, Bradfield
Scheduled Monument
Bar Dyke Ring Cairn, Bradfield
Scheduled Monument
Castle Hill Motte and Bailey, Bradfield
Scheduled Monument

Site of Bolsterstone Castle (putative), Stocksbridge
Porter's Lodge (?Gatehouse to Bolsterstone Castle), Stocksbridge
Posssible Medieval Moat Site, Glen Howe Wood, Bradfield
St Nicholas' Church, Bradfield
Wharncliffe Lodge, Stocksbridge
Fulwood Hall, Medieval and later Hall
Bennet Grange Timber Framed House, Fulwood, Sheffield
Medieval Cross (base only, not in situ), Stannington Road, Bradfield
Mesolithic flint scatter at Mickleden Edge, Bradfield
Possible Bronze Age Cairn, Bradfield
Wharncliffe Quern Workings, Stocksbridge
Walders Low Prehistoric Barrow, Stocksbridge
Romano-British Settlement at Finkle Street (also called Gosling Rough), Wortley
Deepcar Mesolithic Camp at Stocksbridge
Possible Bronze Age Cairn, Loftshaw Low, Bradfield
Possible Bronze Age Cairn, near Thornsett Lodge, Bradfield
Mesolithic Chipping Floor at Hobson Moss Dike, Bradfield
Mesolithic Chipping Floor on Flint Hill, Bradfield
Four Mesolithic Chipping Floors at Flint Hill, Bradfield
Apronful of Stones - Cairnfield, Bradfield
Pike Law Bronze Age Cairns (II), Bradfield
Mesolithic Chipping Floor at Bradfield (Pike Lowe 1)
Two Bronze Age Barrows and Associated Artefacts, Lodge Moor
Three Bronze Age barrows and associated remains
St. Mary's Church and Chapel, Stocksbridge
Midhope Chapel, Bradfield
Medieval Inscribed Stone, east of Wharncliffe Lodge, Wortley
Dike Side Farmhouse (demolished) Cruck Building, Nether Midhope, Bradfield
Site of Cruck Framed Building (demolished), Hawksworth's Cote, Bradfield
Site of Medieval Cruck Building, Tophill Farm, Onesacre, Bradfield
Cruck Barn, Low Hall, Onesacre, Bradfield
Green Farm, Stocksbridge
Green Farm Post-Medieval Barn, Stocksbridge
Manor House (known as Hawksworth House), Upper Midhope, Bradfield
Site of possible Medieval Chapel, Old Chapel Croft, Midhope Hall, Bradfield
Wharncliffe Wood Enclosure of Unknown Date in Todwick Wood, Wortley
Site of Medieval Moated Manor, Stannington, Bradfield
The Manor House, Stannington, Bradfield
Possible Medieval Iron Smelting Site, at Wharncliffe Forest, Bradfield
Dwarriden Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, Ewden, Bradfield
The Old Courthouse (altered medieval building), Midhope Hall Farm, Bradfield
?Medieval Unclassified Earthworks at Finkle Street, Wortley
Bradshaw Farmhouse, Langsett
White House Farmhouse, Seventeenth century farmstead, Stannington
Medieval Cruck Buildings, Nethergate, Stannington
Platts Farmhouse, Ughill, Bradfield
Post-Medieval to Industrial Period Timber Framed Barn, Townhead, Stannington
Swinden Farm, Langsett
Hall Broom Farmhouse, Dungworth, Bradfield
Walker House Cruck Barn, Bradfield
II
One
Two
Two
Scheduled Monument
Scheduled Monument
II
Star
Star
Two
Two
Two
Two
Two
Two

Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, Upper Hoyles Farm, Bradfield
Upper Hoyles Farmhouse Post-Medieval House, Bradfield
Two
Hallfield House Post-Medieval Farmhouse, Bradfield
Two
Possible Iron Age or Romano-British Cropmark Enclosure, east of Stopes, Bradfield
Medieval Cruck Building, Dike side, Langsett
Medieval to Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, Mateo Farm, Langsett
Medieval Cruck Barn, Alderman's Head Cote, Langsett
Two
Alderman's Head Cote Farmhouse, Langsett
Alderman's Cote Cruck Barn, Langsett
Handbank Medieval to Post-Medieval Period Cruck Barn, Langsett
Stanleys Farm Medieval to Post-Medieval Period Cruck Barn, Langsett
Hobsons Farm Medieval to Post-Medieval Period Cruck Barn, Langsett
Cruck Building, Snowden, Hunshelf
Two
Post-Medieval Cruck Barn at Wellbank farm, Upper Midhope, Bradfield Two
?Medieval Cruck Cottage at Wellbank Farm, Upper Midhope, Bradfield
Medieval to Post-Medieval Period Cruck Barn at Town Head Farm, Upper Midhope, Bradfield
Townhead Cottages 17th Century Farmhouse, Bradfield
Two
Medieval to Post-Medieval Period Cruck barn at The Oaks, Midhopestones, Bradfield Two
Medieval Cruck Barn (demolished), Hunshelf
Site of Medieval Cruck Built House, Wigtwizzle, Bradfield
Site of Medieval Cruck Barn, Wigtwizzle, Bradfield
Pot House Farm Cottages, Stocksbridge
Two
Medieval Cruck barn at Watson House Farm, Stocksbridge
II
Site of a Medieval Cruck-built house, Penn-Nook, Deepcarr, Stocksbridge
The Royd Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, Stocksbridge
Two
Medieval Cruck House, Deepcar, Stocksbridge
Medieval Cruck Barn, Deepcar, Stocksbridge
Medieval Cruck Barn, Deepcar, Stocksbridge
Medieval Cruck Building, Stocksbridge
Edge End Cruck Barn, Stocksbridge
Two
Medieval Cruck Barn, Sunny Bank, Stocksbridge
Peas Bloom Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, Stocksbridge
Two
Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, New Mill Bridge, Stocksbridge
Medieval Cruck Barn at Raynor House (also Reynah or Renold house), Ewden Valley, Bradfield
Medieval Cruck Barn at Fairhurst Farm, Ewden, Bradfield
Two
Medieval Cruck Cottage at Fairhurst Farm, Ewden, Bradfield
Medieval Cruck Barn at Thorn House, Ewden, Bradfield
Medieval to Post-Medieval Period Barn and Cow House, More Hall, Stocksbridge
Medieval Cruck Built Cottage (known as Whitley's House), High Lee Farm, Bradfield
Old Hall Farmhouse, Old Hall Farm, Bradfield
Two
Medieval Cruck Built Cart Shed, Lee Farm, Bradfield
Medieval? Cruck Barn, Woodseats Farm, Bradfield
Two
Woodseats Farm Post-Medieval Farmhouse, Bradfield
Two
Medieval Cruck Barn, Hallfield, Badfield
Cruck Barn at Upper Hoyles Farm, Holes Wood, Bradfield
Two
Medieval Cruck Barn, Swinnock Hall, Wharncliffe Side, Bradfield
Swinnock Hall Post-Medieval Farmhouse, Bradfield
Two
Cruck Barn of Unknown Date, Bowsen, Bradfield
Two
Cruck Barn of Unknown Date, Tophill Farm, Onesacre, Bradfield
Cruck Byre at Lowhall (Tophill Farm), Onesacre, Bradfield

Medieval Cruck Barn, Damflask, Bradfield
Cruck Barn at Sunnyside Farm, Bradfield
Medieval Cruck Building, Fair House Farm, Bradfield
Star
Late 17th Century Farmhouse at Fair House Farm, Bradfield
Two
Medieval to Post-Medieval Cruck Building at Oughtibridge Hall, Bradfield Two
Medieval Cruck Barn, Worrall, Bradfield
Site of cruck barn, Underhill Farm, Birley Carr
Medieval Cruck Barn and 17th Century Cruck Cottage, Hall Broom, Bradfield
Cruck Building, Hall Broom, Dungworth
Two
Medieval Cruck Barn, Tom Hill, Bradfield
Two
Cruck House, Tom Hill, Bradfield
Two
Medieval Cruck barn, Sykehouse, Bradfield
Two
17th to 18th Century Farmhouse, Sykehouse Farm, Bradfield
18th century Barn at Sykehouse Farm, Bradfield
Possible Site of a Cruck Barn, Barker House, Hill Top, Bradfield
Medieval Cruck House, Townhead, Bradfield
Site of a cruck barn (West), Wiggins Farm, Crimicar Lane
Site of cruck barn, Wiggins Farm, Crimicar Lane
Cruck barn, Fulwood
Cruck cottage, Bassett Houses, Fulwood
Cruck building, Walkley
Medieval Cruck Barn, Well House Farm, Bradfield
Pond Farmhouse Medieval Cruck Built House, Stannington, Bradfield
Two
Site of Medieval Cruck Building, Knowle Top, Stannington
Medieval Cruck building at Parkside Farm, Stannington, Bradfield
Site of cruck built cottages, Orchard Place, Walkley
Site of cruck barn, Bell Hagg, Crosspool
Cruck barn, Grange Farm, Stumperlowe Hall Road, Fulwood
Two
Cruck built house, Grange Farm, Stumperlowe Hall Road, Fulwood
Two
Stumperlowe cottage, cruck house, Fulwood
Stumperlowe cottage barn, cruck barn, Fulwood
Clough Fields Farm, cruck barn, Crosspool
Site of Medieval Cruck Built Gatehouse, Bradfield Church
Site of Medieval Cruck Building, Swinglee Ford, Bradfield
Site of Possible Medieval Building at The Cote (demolished 1903), Upper Midhope, Bradfield
Post-Medieval Barn, Dean Head Farm Barn, Hunshelf
Two
Dean Head Farmhouse, Hunshelf
Two
Shepherd's Cot House, Green Moor, Hunshelf
Wadsley Manor, Laird Road, Shefield
Oughtbridge Hall Post-Medieval Building, Bradfield
Worrall Hall Medieval Timber Framed Building and 17th century Hall, Bradfield
Cruck barn, Bennet Grange, Fulwood
Medieval Cruck Barn, Cote House Farm, Bradfield
Medieval Cruck Barn, Hill Farm, Bradfield
Medieval Cruck barn, Throstle Nest, Bradfield
Two
Medieval Cruck Building, Uppergate Road, Bradfield
Medieval Cruck House, 102 Uppergate, Stannington, Bradfield
Uppermost Wheel, grinding wheel
Rivelin Corn Mill
Rivelin Corn Mill dam

Rivelin Corn Mill wheels
Upper Coppice Wheel
Upper Coppice Wheel wire mill
Upper Coppice Wheel weir
Second Coppice Wheel
Second Coppice Wheel wire mill
Second Coppice Wheel
Third Coppice Wheel - grinding wheel
Rivelin Paper Mills -Third Coppice Wheel
Third Coppice Wheel - paper mill (see 01625/02)
Frank Wheel,
Rivelin Valley Paper Mills - Frank Wheel site
Frank Mill Dam
Wolf or Rocher Wheel - grinding wheel
Wolf or Rocher Wheel - Mill
Wolf or Rocher Wheel dam
Swallow Wheel - grinding wheel
Plonk Wheel - grinding wheel
Hind Wheel
Hind Wheel dam
Upper Cut Wheel - grinding wheel
Upper Cut Wheel dam
Upper Cut Wheel - mill
Nether Cut or New Wheel, grinding wheel
Nether Cut or New Wheel dam
Little London Wheel, Rivelin Valley - grinding wheel
Holme Head Wheel - grinding wheel
Holmhead Wheel dam
Roscoe Wheel - grinding wheel
Roscoe Wheel dam
New Dam
Spooner, Holme or Rivelin Bridge Wheel - grinding wheel
Rivelin Bridge Wheel, also known as Hollins Bridge Corn Mill
Rivelin Bridge Mill
Walkley Bank Tilt (aka Havelock or Hallam Wheel) - grinding wheel
Walkley Bank Tilt forging hammer
Walkley Bank Tilt - Wire Mill
Mousehole Forge - Forging Hammer
Mousehole Forge - iron forge
Mousehole forge - cutler's forge
Grogham Wheels
Low Bradfield Corn Mill (demolished) and Mill House
Damflask Corn Mill (under reservoir), Bradfield
Damflask Wheel Post-Medieval Cutlery Grinding Wheel, Bradfield
Damflask Industrial Period Paper Mill and Wheel (under reservoir), Bradfield
Stacey Wheel Cutler's Wheel (destroyed by flood), Bradfield
Storrs Bridge Cutler's Wheel, Bradfield
Storrs Bridge Steel Forging Hammer, Bradfield
Storrs Bridge Wheel Rolling Mills, Bradfield
Storrs Bridge Wheel Wire Mill, Bradfield
Scheduled Monument
Scheduled Monument

Loxley Old Wheel (also known as Loxley Plane Wheel), Forging Hammer and Clay Mill, Bradfield
Rowell Bridge Grinding Wheels, Bradfield
Storrs Mills, Bradfield
Loxley Mills and Lead Smelting Site, Storrs Brook
Olive Wheel Post-Medieval to Industrial Period Grinding Wheel, Bradfield Two
Olive Wheel Olive Paper Mill, Bradfield
Two
Olive Wheel Industrial to Modern Period Rolling Mill, Bradfield
Two
Cliff Wheel Industrial Period Grinding Wheel, Bradfield
Low Matlock Wheel (aka Boggey and Lower Cliff) Cultery Grinding Wheel, Tilt Hammer Scheduled and Rolling Monument; Mill, Bradfield Grade II* Listed
Ashton Carr Wheel - Grinding Wheel and Tilt Hammer, Bradfield
Green Wheel Snuff Mill and Forging Hammer, Bradfield
Glass Tilt Site of Glass Works, Iron Bloomery and Wire Mill, Bradfield
Broadhead Wheel Site of Forging Hammer and Steel Works, Bradfield
Wisewood Rolling Mill, also Bradshaw Wheel, Nether Scythe Mill
Wisewood Rolling Mill forging hammer
Wisewood Rolling Mill - rolling mills
Malin Bridge Corn Mill
Malin Bridge Corn Mill - Foundry
Millwright's at Malin Bridge Corn Mill
Malin Bridge Corn Mill - corn mill
Turner Wheel - grinding wheel
The Old Forge, Oughtibridge, Bradfield
Two
Oughtibridge Corn Mill and Tilt Hammer, Bradfield
Wagtail Wheel Grinding Wheel, Bradfield
The Corn Mill, Bradfield
Upper Middlewood Forge, Bradfield
Middlewood Rolling Mill - Middlewood Works - Slitting Mill
Beeley Wood Works aka Nova Scotia Tilts
Clay Wheels, or Hawksley grinding wheel
Clay Wheels forging hammer
Wadsley Bridge Paper Mill / Niagara Works - paper mill
Wadsley Bridge Paper Mill / Niagara Works - tilt hammer
Wadsley Bridge Paper Mill / Niagara Works - wire mill
Niagara Works forge
Wadsley Bridge, or Leppings, corn mill
Wadsley Bridge, or Leppings, Forge - forging hammer
Wadsley Bridge Forge - forging hammer
Cob Castle Earthworks and Possible Cairns of Unknown Date, near Wharncliffe
Wadsley Manor, Chapel
'The Dairy' More Hall Farm, Stocksbridge
Hunshelf Hall
Two
Hollin Busk Farmhouse, Stocksbridge
Sugworth Hall, Bradfield Dale
Two
New Mill, Thurgoland
Two
Town Head Farmhouse
Cloth Hall, Hunshelf
Two
Alderman's Head Farmhouse, Langsett
Tom Hill Farm House 17th Century Farm House, Bradfield
19th Century Footbridge, Bradfield
Two
Possible Romano-British Enclosures in Hare Spring Wood, Wortley

Unclassified Earthwork Banks, Sheffield
Undated Enclosure or Possible Promontory Fort, Ash Cabin Flat
Remains of Possible Long Cist and Cairn, Lenny Hill
Undated Trapezoidal Shaped Enclosure, Peterwood, Sheffield
Cluster of Possible Hut Circles, Hallam Moors
Midhope Pottery Dam, Bradfield
Midhope Pottery / Midhopestones Pottery, Bradfield
?Iron Age or Romano-British Quern Workings, Den Bank
Unclassified Flint Finds found with Bronze Waste and Ornament, Sheffield
Purported Village of Hallam, Sheffield
Wharncliffe Quern Workings (extension), Stocksbridge
Hut Circles and Enclosures, Sheffield
Hut Circles and Field System, New Hagg, Sheffield
Undated Field System,
Undated Hut Circle, Ash Cabin Flat, Sheffield
Chert Working Site of Unknown Date, Red Moor, Bradfield
?Roman Enclosures and Field Boundaries at Gosling Spring, east of Stocksbridge, Wortley Scheduled Monument
Unclassified Flint Waste, Hallam Moors, Sheffield
Possible Romano-British Smelting Site, Bradfield
Post-Medieval Packhorse Road, adjacent to the modern road, Bradfield
Site of Putative Bronze Age Stone Circle and Barrow, Bradfield
Paleswood Smelting Site, Wortley
Earthwork Enclosure situated in Todwick Woods, Wortley
Ewden Beck Ring Cairn, Bradfield
Wadsley Furnace
Ash Cabin Flat Embanked Stone Circle
Scheduled Monument
Late Medieval or Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, Stocksbridge
Low Forge, Wortley
Scheduled Monument
Forge Lane Corn Mill, Wortley
Site of the Old Workhouse, Wortley
Gosling Moor Farm Post-Medieval Barn, Wortley
Romano-British Quern Find, Wortley
Romano-British Beehive Quern Find, Wortley
Unfinished Quernstone found near Gosling Spring, Wortley
Windhill Farm Farmhouse, Stocksbridge
Two
Windmill Farm Post-Medieval Cruck Barn, Stocksbridge
Two
Windhill Farm Post-Medieval Farm Building, Stocksbridge
two
Royd Farmhouse, Stocksbridge
Two
More Hall, Stocksbridge
Industrial Period Barn and Farm Buildings, north-east of Royd Farmhouse, Stocksbridge
Lower Town End Post-Medieval Farmhouse, Stocksbridge
Two
Wharncliffe Lodge, Stocksbridge
two
Yew Tree Cottage Post-Medieval Farmhouse, near Bolsterstone, Stocksbridge Two
Hole House Farm Post-Medieval Cottage, Stocksbridge
Unenclosed Settlement of Unknown Date (I), Stocksbridge
Unenclosed Settlement of Unknown Date (II), Stocksbridge
Old Clackmill Culvert and Dam, Stocksbridge
Old Clackmill Stone Lined Culvert
Old Clackmill Dam (II), Stocksbridge
Wadsley Almshouses
Two

St Anne's Well, Sheffield
St Jame's Well, Bradfield
St Matthew's Well
Robin Hood's Well, Bradfield
Dragon's Well, possible holy well.
Dragon's Well, Bradfield
Potter's Well Spring and Stone Troughs, Bradfield
Unsliven Bridge Pottery Works, Bradfield
Hand Bank Brickworks and Pottery Midhopestone, Bradfield
Medieval Ridge and Furrow, Stocksbridge
Hall Broom Cote Cottage, Bradfield
West Carr Cottages, Sheffield
Albion Row, 19th Century Grinder's Cottages, Sheffield
Medieval Wool Mill, New Hall Wood, Stocksbridge
Mesolithic Flint Scatter at North America Farm, Bradfield
Post-Medieval to Industrial Period Barn, Bradfield
Post-Medieval to Industrial Period Barn, Bradfield
Ruined Cruck Framed House, Bradfield
Site of Walkley Hall
Site of Tapton Hill, Sheffield
Rivelin Glen Cottages, Sheffield
Site of Medieval House, Stacey House, Sheffield
Stone Troughs on the Stannage Estate, Sheffield
Stone troughs for grouse watering on Stannage Estate
Langsett House and Post-Medieval Barn
Wagon and Horses Public House, Langsett
Lower Belle Clive Farmhouse, Langsett
Lower Belle Clive Farmhouse Post-Medieval Stable, Langsett
Post-Medieval House and Stable, south side of Manchester Road, Langsett
Post-Medieval Barn, off south side of Manchester Road, Langsett
Underbank Chapel, Bradfield
Possible Barrows, Sheffield
Barrow or Cairn, Sheffield
Lower Hand Bank Farmhouse, Langsett
Wightwizzle Hall, Broomhead, Bradfield
Unsliven Bridge Farm Post-Medieval Laithe House, Stocksbridge
Spring Grove Mill, Oughtibridge, Bradfield
Bingley Seat 17th Century Farmhouse, Bradfield
Early 19th Century Cartshed, Bents Farm, Bradfield
Revell Grange House and Roman Catholic Chapel, Bradfield
Burton House Farm, Bradfield
Far House Farmhouse, Bradfield
Low Fold Farm, Bradfield
Late 17th Century Cottage, Onesacre, Bradfield
Lower Thornseat Farmhouse, Bradfield
Padley Farm House, Mid 18th Century Farmhouse, Bradfield
Burnside Cottages, Low Bradfield
Nether Farmhouse, Low Bradfield
Wesleyan Chapel, Bradfield
Strines Inn, Bradfield
Two
two
two
two
two
two
2two
two
two
two
Two
2two
Two
two
Two
Two
two
two
two
two
two

Old Booth Farmhouse, Bradfield
two
Middlewood Hall, Bradfield
2two
Rocher Farm Post-Medieval Farmhouse, Bradfield
two
Spout House Late 17th Century House, Bradfield
two
18th Century Guide Pillar, Bradfield
two
18th Century Guide Pillar, Bradfield
two
Stonecroft Cottage Late 18th Century Cottage, Bradfield
Two
Mid 19th Century Guidepost, Bradfield
Two
Flash Cottage 17th Century Farmhouse and Barn, Bradfield
Two
Iron Age or Romano-British Enclosures at Wortley, near Sheffield, Stocksbridge
Industrial Period Gannister Pits, Penistone
Whitwell Cottage Farm 19th Century Barn and Pig Sties, Stocksbridge
Green Moor Methodist Chapel, Hunshelf
Fulwood Radar Unit
Windhill Farm 17th Century Farm Buildings, Stocksbridge
Windhill Farm Post-Medieval to Industrial Period Stable and Farm Building, Stocksbridge
Windhill Farm Post-Medieval to Industrial Period Farm Building, Stocksbridge
19th Century Carmelite Monastery and Orphanage, Bradfield
Castle Cottage, Stocksbridge
II
Dyson Cote Stoop, Langsett
Badger Lane Packhorse Road, Langsett
Badger Lane Packhorse Road, Langsett
Christ Church, Bradfield
two
Wadsley Manor, Sheffield
Medieval to Post-Medieval Period Milestone, Langsett
two
New Mill Bridge, Wortley
two
Stoneycroft Lane Packhorse Road, Stocksbridge
Stoneycroft Lane Packhorse Road, Stocksbridge
Moscar Cross Boundary Stone, Bradfield
Bingley Lane Cottage Early to mid-19th Century Cutlery Works, Bradfield
Stannington Razor Scale Pressers
Nook End Shop
Post-Medieval to Industrial Period Trough, Broomhead Park, Bradfield
19th century Obelisk at Edgefield Farm / Edge Dale Cottage, Bradfield
two
Undated Pillory, Bradfield
Handsome Cross, Bradfield
two
Possible Roman Road south of Gin Piece Plantation
Possible Roman Road south of Gin Piece Plantation
Loxley and Wadsley Common Quarry, Bradfield
Socket stone for ?Anglo-Saxon Period Cross, Stocksbridge
Site of Buried Saxon Period Cross now in Bradfield Church
Dungworth Cross (possible site of medieval cross), Bradfield
New Cross, Medieval cross (base only), Bradfield
Scheduled Monument
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Upper Holdron, Langsett
Mesolithic Tranchet Arrowhead Find from Mickleden, Bradfield
Neolithic Leaf Shaped Arrowhead Find, Mickleden Edge, Bradfield
Bronze Age Barbed and Tanged Arrowhead Find, Bradfield
Transverse Arrowhead Find, Bradfield
Flint Finds from Mickelden Edge, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Assemblage, Hingcliffe Hill, Bradfield

Tranchet Arrowhead Find, Hingcliffe Hill, Bradfield
Barbed and Tanged Arrowhead Find, Hingcliff Hill, Bradfield
Bronze Age Bone Pendant or Wrist Guard, found at Mickleden Edge, Bradfield
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Artefact Scatter, Rocher Head, Bradfield
Roman Coin Find, found near Bradfield
Roman Coins found near Bailey Hill, Bradfield
?Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age Flint Scatter, Bailey Hill, Bradfield
Roman Coins found at Castle Hill, Bradfield
Late Neolithic to Early Bronze Age Macehead, found near Damflask Reservoir, Bradfield
Neolithic Polished Stone Axe Find, Howe Wood, Bradfield
Neolithic Leaf Shaped Arrowhead found of the Knowle, Bradfield
Mesolithic 'Petit Tranchet' Arrowhead found at Rocher, Bradfield
Flint Fragments of Possible Mesolithic Date, found near Handsome Cross, Bradfield
Mesolithic Chert / Flint Artefacts found White Lee Moor, Bradfield
Polished Stone Axe Find, Bocking Hill, Stocksbridge
Neolithic Flint Arrowhead found at Stone Moor, Stocksbridge
Copper Coin Find of Unknown Date, Stocksbridge
Flint Scraper Find, Stocksbridge
Iron Age Beehive Quern Find, Bradfield
?Bronze Age Palstave,
Roman Coin Find, Ewden Valley, Stocksbridge
Roman Gold Coin Find, found near More Hall, Stocksbridge
?Neolithic Unpolished Stone Axehead, found on north bank of Underbank Reservoir, Langsett
Bronze Age Axe Find, Agden, Bradfield
Iron Age Querns found in Bradfield Parish
Flint Waste found on Brogging Moss, Bradfield
Bronze Age Barbed and Tanged Arrowhead, Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
Mesolithic Arrowhead found Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Flint Hill, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flints found near Chipping Floors, Bradfield
Bronze Age Cremation Urns, Bradfield
Flint Scraper and Flake Finds, Broomhead Moors, Bradfield
Bronze Age Axe Head from Broomhead, Bradfield
Roman Coin found in Bradfield Parish
Roman Coin found in Ewden Beck, Bradfield
Bronze Age Arrowhead, found in Bradfield Parish
Bronze Age Arrowhead Find, Bradfield
Bronze Age Barbed and Tanged Arrowhead Find, Bradfield
Flint Scatter of Mesolithic to Bronze Age Date, Broomhead Moor, Bradfield
Bronze Age Barbed and Tanged Arrowhead Find, Bradfield
Prehistoric Flint Arrowhead Find, Bradfield
Bronze Age Flint Finds, south of Langsett Reservoir, Bradfield
Polished Stone Axe and Flints, found south of Barnside Reservoir, Bradfield
Bronze Age Flint Scatter from Hollow Meadows, Bradfield
Mesolithic Stone Tool Finds, Bradfield
Bronze Age palstave
Middle Bronze Age Spearhead Find, Stannington, Bradfield
Roman Bronze Pendant, found Hall Broom Reservoir, Bradfield
Neolithic flint spearhead, Redmires
Possible Mesolithic Flint Scraper & Flake Finds, Rivelin Rocks, Bradfield

Flint flake, possible mesolithic date, Blackbrook Wood
Fragment of Roman lamp, Allen Sike Farm
Roman Military Diploma, found near Stannington, Sheffield
Two Roman coins,
Iron Age Beehive Quern Find, Bradfield
Bronze Age Arrowhead
Flint blade, possibly Mesolithic in date
Carved Stone Head from site of Bolsterstone Castle, Stocksbridge
Medieval Coin Find, Bradfield
Medieval Carved Stone Head, Thornseats House, Bradfield
Possible Medieval Carved Stone Grave Cover, The Oaks, Midhopestone, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Scatter, Wharncliffe Moor, Wortley
Roman Coin Finds, Middlewood Quarry, Bradfield
Mesolithic flints, Stanage Edge
Mesolithic Flint, Upper Redmires
Neolithic Axe, Bole Hill
Bronze Age Cinerary Urn, Bole Hill Lane
Second Bronze Age Cinerary Urn, Bole Hill Lane,
Bronze Age Incense Cup, Bole Hill Lane,
Bronze Age tanged knife, Bole Hill Lane,
Bronze Age leaf shaped arrowhead, Bole Hill Lane,
Bronze Age Calcinated bone,, Bole Hill Lane,
Roman Lamp
Neolithic arrowhead
Neolithic axe
Bronze age arrowhead
Neolithic polished stone axe
Roman coin
Roman coin
Bronze Age arrowhead, Crookes
Meolithic flints
Mesolithic Flints reportedly found at Hollow Meadows, Moscar Cross, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flints reportedly found at Hollow Meadows, Moscar Cross, Bradfield
Mesolithic Flint Finds, Pike Lowe, Bradford
Mesolithic Flint Finds from Mickeden Edge, Bradfield
Roman pottery
Roman mosaic tile (tessera)
Axe hammer of possible Neolithic date
Late Medieval Pottery Scatter, Midhope, Bradfield
Medieval Coin, Belgrave Road, Sheffield
Scatter of Post-Medieval Pottery found in plough soil near Wharncliffe Wood, Wortley
Roman Road; Brough to Doncaster via Templeborough
Broomhead Dyke, Linear Earthwork, Bradfield
Judd Field Lane Packhorse Road, Bradfield
Wadsley Church and Burial Ground
Stocksbridge Royal Observer Corps Monitoring Post
Redmires army then POW camp, later Lodge Moor POW Camp
Redmires trench warfare training ground
Scheduled Monument
Griff Works (Dysons), Stopes Road, Stannington
Glen Howe Park Wood Post-Medieval to Modern Period Sites (B), Sheffield

?Post-Medieval Gritstone Quarries, Bradfield
Possible Barrow of Unknown Date, Bradfield
?Medieval to Post-Medieval Field Boundary Lynchet to the west of Knoll Brook
Post-Medieval Terraced Trackway to the east of Ewden Brows
Post-Medieval Braided Routeway on Whitwell Moor
?Post-Medieval Small Ruined Building to the north of Ewden Brows
Post-Medieval Terraced Trackways between Ewden Brows and Ewden Bridge
Post-Medieval Terraced Trackways between Ewden Brows and Ewden Bridge
Post-Medieval Terraced Trackways between Ewden Brows and Ewden Bridge
Post-Medieval Terraced Trackways between Ewden Brows and Ewden Bridge
Post-Medieval Terraced Trackways between Ewden Brows and Ewden Bridge
Post-Medieval Terraced Trackways between Ewden Brows and Ewden Bridge
Post-Medieval Terraced Trackways between Ewden Brows and Ewden Bridge
Post-Medieval Terraced Trackways between Ewden Brows and Ewden Bridge
Post-Medieval Terraced Trackways between Ewden Brows and Ewden Bridge
Three Late 19th to Early 20th Century Ruined Buildings near Ewden Brows
Possible WWII Anti-Aircraft Battery to the south of Gill Royd Lane
WWII Trenching and Gun Emplacements to the south of Gill Royd Lane
Medieval or Post-Medieval Hollow ways on Barnside Moor
WWII Military Structures at Ewden Height
WWII Military Structures at Ewden Height
Post-Medieval Grouse Shooting Butts to the west of Mortimer Road
Batty's Lathe Post-Medieval Ruined Farmstead and Associated Trackway
Post-Medieval Quarry Pits and Terraced Trackway west of Mortimer Road
West Farm Post-Medieval Ruined Farmstead
Post-Medieval Terraced Trackway/Hollow way on White Carr
Post-Medieval Terraced Trackway/Hollow way on White Carr
Post-Medieval Terraced Trackway/Hollow way on White Carr
?Medieval or Post-Medieval Braided Hollow way near Moorside Cottage
Duke's Road 19th Century Terraced Trackway
'Sod Bank Field' 19th Century Enclosure for Grouse Cereal
Gritstone Quarries, Trackways and associated Shelters east of Blindside Lane
Gritstone Quarries north of Hoyles Farm
Area of ?Millstone Quarrying east of Lee Bank
?Post-Medieval Coal Pits west of Holes Wood
Site of Coo House Post-Medieval Farmstead
Pears House Post-Medieval Farmstead
Drystone Wall Shelters of Unknown Date at Hall Broom Farm
Former Hillfoot Steelworks, Wadsley Bridge, Sheffield
Hunshelf Corn Mill
Quernstones, Clough Fields Farm, Sheffield
Thornbury Hospital
Grounds of Thornbury Hospital, Sheffield
Grounds of The Towers, Sheffield
Tapton Court, Ranmoor, Sheffield.
Grounds of Tapton Court, Sheffield
Stocksbridge Steelworks
Early 20th century water filtration building, Low Bradfield
Lead smelting site at Lodge Moor, Ughill, Bradfield
Bronze Age Round Barrows at Ewden Beck, Bradfield
two
Scheduled Monument

'Whitley Church' Roman Earthwork Enclosures, Wortley
Castle Dyke Iron Age Enclosure, Gilbert Hill, Langsett
Pike Law Bronze Age Cairns (I), Bradfield
Possible Iron Age or Romano-British Cropmark Enclosure, near Dam Flask Reservoir, Bradfield
Possible Iron Age or Romano-British Enclosure at Hill House, Bradfield
Medieval Cruck Barn at Briers House, Dungworth, Bradfield
two
Wisewood Scythe Wheels or Wisewood Forge (west)
Bolsterstone Glassworks and Bate Green Pot House, Stocksbridge
Scheduled Monument; Grade II Listed B
Earthwork Bank and Enclosures at Cowell Flat, Bradfield
Scheduled Monument
Crookesmoor Racecourse, Sheffield
Broomhead Hall, Stables, Farm Buildings and Post-Medieval Park, Bradfield two
Post-Medieval Pinfold or Pound, Lily Cottage, Bradfield

NHLE Period Theme Sub-theme Column Easting Northing
Medieval FIN 430520 387780
Neolithic PRE FIN 430519 387762
Early Medieval FIN 427600 388900
Mesolithic PRE FIN 427600 388900
Post-medieval FIN 427600 388900
Multiperiod FIN 430090 398970
Prehistoric PRE FIN 419800 400420
Modern SET URB 432400 387600
Prehistoric PRE FIN 422400 395600
Neolithic PRE FIN 422400 394300
Neolithic PRE FIN 422400 395100
Neolithic PRE FIN 422300 395200
Prehistoric PRE FIN 422300 395100
Prehistoric PRE FIN 422300 395200
Prehistoric PRE FIN 422600 395300
Iron Age PRE FIN 429800 385400
Mesolithic PRE FIN 423900 387000
Unknown FIN 423390 388150
Post-medieval IND OTH 425700 397850
Post-medieval IND OTH 425700 397850
Post-medieval FIN 423700 399700
Romano-British FIN 430200 397100
Mesolithic PRE FIN 430200 397100
Medieval FIN 430200 397100
Post-medieval FIN 421250 401250
Mesolithic PRE FIN 420200 400000
Mesolithic PRE FIN 418000 398000
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419180 398590
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419730 399940
Mesolithic PRE FIN 429057 386188
Mesolithic PRE FIN 426700 385900
Prehistoric PRE FIN 427500 386100
Mesolithic PRE FIN 429550 386710
Prehistoric PRE FIN 427650 386150
Prehistoric PRE FIN 429950 386350
Prehistoric PRE FIN 429960 386270
Prehistoric PRE FIN 427400 387610
Unknown FIN 429690 386990
Prehistoric PRE FIN 425080 388290
Unknown FIN 429010 385660
Unknown FIN 425700 385050
Prehistoric PRE FIN 425780 385710
Prehistoric PRE FIN 427450 389000
Prehistoric PRE FIN 427600 388950
Mesolithic PRE FIN 427650 388900
Unknown FIN 427200 388010
Unknown FIN 428320 385820
Medieval FIN 429380 386150
Mesolithic PRE FIN 421589 389697

Mesolithic PRE FIN 419710 400550
Mesolithic PRE FIN 423900 387000
Prehistoric PRE FIN 423390 388150
Prehistoric PRE FIN 424050 388420
Bronze Age PRE FIN 422870 388050
Prehistoric PRE FIN 422800 386900
Prehistoric PRE FIN 423110 388380
Mesolithic PRE FIN 421980 389770
Mesolithic PRE FIN 425640 384960
Unknown FIN 424920 384650
Unknown FIN 429100 395000
Romano-British FIN 425950 396150
Romano-British FIN 425950 396150
Post-medieval FIN 426880 398200
Romano-British FIN 427600 397400
Unknown FIN 426340 398490
Unknown FIN 423480 399400
Prehistoric PRE FIN 424600 399320
Prehistoric PRE FIN 425500 390350
Prehistoric PRE FIN 425020 390100
Prehistoric PRE FIN 425800 390500
Prehistoric PRE FIN 422500 394700
Mesolithic PRE FIN 421900 394900
Prehistoric PRE FIN 420450 390680
Mesolithic PRE FIN 424490 394520
Mesolithic PRE FIN 424740 394310
Mesolithic PRE FIN 421800 392600
Prehistoric PRE FIN 424550 390480
Prehistoric PRE FIN 424260 394590
Medieval FIN 430220 388430
Prehistoric PRE FIN 430600 387100
Prehistoric PRE FIN 432450 387540
Prehistoric PRE FIN 430300 386800
Mesolithic PRE FIN 431912 388449
Unknown FIN 431420 386870
Prehistoric PRE FIN 432750 388400
Romano-British FIN 430360 396800
Prehistoric PRE FIN 431100 390600
Prehistoric PRE FIN 427720 395720
Prehistoric PRE FIN 427520 395580
Bronze Age PRE FIN 426980 396720
Unknown FIN 426760 397500
Unknown FIN 426420 397560
Prehistoric PRE FIN 426800 398000
Prehistoric PRE FIN 429730 395570
Mesolithic PRE FIN 429780 395650
Prehistoric PRE FIN 429710 395740
Neolithic PRE FIN 428420 397930
Unknown FIN 429400 397690
Romano-British FIN 427890 398050

Prehistoric PRE FIN 419350 399250
Prehistoric PRE FIN 419350 397600
Prehistoric PRE FIN 419970 399860
Prehistoric PRE FIN 425020 399560
Prehistoric PRE FIN 427100 387100
Neolithic PRE FIN 424000 389000
Mesolithic PRE FIN 424100 386020
Unknown FIN 423600 388600
Post-medieval TRA INF 427327 393400
1192317 Post-medieval TRA INF 427676 393844
Bronze Age PRE FIN 419927 399899
Prehistoric PRE FIN 419888 399892
Neolithic PRE FIN 419820 399973
Prehistoric PRE FIN 419695 399882
Post-medieval SET RUR 428390 391501
Post-medieval IND MET 429375 398894
Medieval IND OTH 429961 393057
Modern SET REC 433290 390627
Post-medieval IND OTH 429019 390108
1286346 Medieval SET INS LAW 427094 396783
Modern MIL DEF 431300 389000
Modern MIL DEF 427300 393700
Prehistoric PRE FIN 418679 398743
Prehistoric PRE FIN 419687 398988
Post-medieval SET ELI 424440 395123
Post-medieval IND EXT 424051 390257
Prehistoric PRE FIN 423180 395251
Mesolithic PRE FIN 424999 392002
Mesolithic PRE FIN 423002 392999
Mesolithic PRE FIN 420300 391500
Mesolithic PRE FIN 422400 395100
Mesolithic PRE 422400 395100
Mesolithic PRE FIN 422000 395000
Mesolithic PRE FIN 422800 394900
Mesolithic PRE FIN 427000 390000
Mesolithic PRE FIN 427000 387000
Mesolithic PRE FIN 430400 396900
Mesolithic PRE FIN 426700 392800
Mesolithic PRE FIN 422200 395600
Mesolithic PRE FIN 422600 395200
Mesolithic PRE FIN 421600 392300
Mesolithic PRE FIN 421502 392201
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419301 398900
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419000 398001
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419000 398001
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419200 398600
Mesolithic PRE FIN 422900 388600
Mesolithic PRE FIN 421000 397000
Mesolithic PRE FIN 421300 389500
Mesolithic PRE FIN 418800 399000

Mesolithic PRE FIN 421200 396200
Mesolithic PRE FIN 421100 396300
Mesolithic PRE FIN 417200 399700
Mesolithic PRE FIN 423000 385200
Mesolithic PRE FIN 424000 386000
Mesolithic PRE FIN 423000 386000
Mesolithic PRE FIN 429750 395600
Mesolithic PRE FIN 421000 399500
Mesolithic PRE FIN 421000 400000
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419300 398100
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419300 398100
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419300 398100
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419000 399000
Mesolithic PRE FIN 426523 393704
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419502 400100
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419502 400100
Prehistoric PRE FIN 425204 399608
Post-medieval SET INS REL 432948 387443
Modern SET INS EDU 432458 386525
Post-medieval MIL DEF 428100 386400
Modern MIL TRA 427397 386260
Prehistoric PRE FIN 425141 385601
Romano-British TRA ROU 427196 385899
Post-medieval IND MET 427122 396783
Medieval SET ELI 427184 396784
Modern SET URB 433357 387128
Modern SET URB 433120 387528
Modern SET URB 432413 387604
Modern SET URB 432690 387851
Modern SET URB 432732 387943
1246804 Modern SET URB 432727 389759
Modern SET URB 431948 390795
1247191, 1270947 Post-medieval SET ELI 431072 386805
Post-medieval SET ELI 432631 386620
Unknown FIN 428765 387522
Post-medieval FIN 425020 390100
Medieval SET PAT 430500 395700
Post-medieval IND OTH 427267 398611
Iron Age PRE FIN 420830 399982
Post-medieval IND EXT 429173 397870
Post-medieval SET RUR 428344 389854
Post-medieval TRA INF 424683 384426
Post-medieval IND EXT 427413 397532
Post-medieval IND MET 429848 394446
Bronze Age PRE 429828 397654
1017508 Unknown AGR DIV 424623 394635
1013217 Medieval SET ELI 426620 392670
1010769 Prehistoric PRE 423818 396648
1017667 Bronze Age PRE 424490 394590
1017612 Medieval SET ELI 427110 392319

Medieval SET ELI 427165 396829
1132801 Post-medieval SET ELI 427130 396820
Medieval SET ELI 429200 394190
1192617 Medieval SET INS REL 426710 392540
Medieval SET RUR 430500 395600
1270472 Medieval SET ELI 429400 385300
Post-medieval SET RUR 429000 385400
1132854 Medieval SET INS REL 431200 388500
Mesolithic PRE 419270 398210
Bronze Age PRE 425700 394200
1004802 Romano-British IND EXT 429600 397700
Prehistoric PRE 427680 396860
Romano-British SET PAT 429900 398500
Mesolithic PRE 429196 398119
Bronze Age PRE 423900 390600
Bronze Age PRE 424000 392200
Mesolithic PRE 421405 393804
Mesolithic PRE 421700 394600
Mesolithic PRE 422800 394900
1018039 Bronze Age PRE 424258 394627
Bronze Age PRE 421060 397610
Mesolithic PRE 421100 397200
Bronze Age PRE 429021 386257
Bronze Age PRE 429100 386200
1132798 Medieval SET INS REL 427080 396811
1132872 Medieval SET INS REL 423500 399539
Medieval FIN 430600 395600
Medieval SET RUR CRU 423840 399670
Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 421200 399900
1191806 Post-medieval SET RUR 429733 393443
1314542 Medieval SET RUR CRU 429700 393400
1193105 Post-medieval SET ELI 425336 398373
Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 425300 398400
1192641 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 421450 399660
Medieval SET INS REL 423400 399400
Prehistoric PRE 430500 394900
Medieval SET ELI 430600 388660
Medieval SET ELI 430600 388660
Medieval IND MET 430500 396400
1132876 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 425835 395615
1132844 Medieval SET INS LAW 423350 399530
Medieval AGR DIV 430200 399000
Medieval SET RUR 421240 401240
Post-medieval SET RUR 430030 388120
Medieval SET RUR CRU 430030 388140
Post-medieval SET RUR 425520 390030
Post-medieval SET RUR 429670 388370
Post-medieval SET RUR 419400 400800
1132858 Post-medieval SET RUR 427070 389670
Medieval SET RUR CRU 425060 391890

Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 423890 390500
1132867 Post-medieval SET RUR 423910 390500
1192122 Post-medieval SET RUR 423420 391480
Iron Age PRE 428500 388700
Medieval SET RUR CRU 420300 400300
Medieval SET RUR CRU 421200 400400
1151080 Medieval SET RUR CRU 422330 400850
Post-medieval SET RUR 422330 400830
Medieval SET RUR CRU 422820 400700
Medieval SET RUR CRU 423200 400100
Medieval SET RUR CRU 424500 400400
Medieval SET RUR CRU 424500 400400
1151117 Medieval SET RUR CRU 426200 400600
1132831 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 421700 399640
Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 421690 399660
Medieval SET RUR CRU 421400 399700
1132826 Post-medieval SET RUR 421430 399630
1286669 Medieval SET RUR CRU 423970 399330
Medieval SET RUR CRU 425000 399300
Medieval SET RUR CRU 424800 395700
Medieval SET RUR CRU 424800 395700
1193179 Medieval SET RUR CRU 426627 398000
1132799 Medieval SET RUR CRU 427615 397987
Medieval SET RUR CRU 428200 397300
1193193 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 427940 397356
Medieval SET RUR CRU 427999 397291
Medieval SET RUR CRU 428100 397800
Medieval SET RUR CRU 428500 397800
Medieval SET RUR CRU 427700 396300
1132806 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 427873 396480
Medieval SET RUR CRU 428210 396330
1132802 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 428451 396221
Medieval SET RUR CRU 427300 396000
Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 427460 395630
1132871 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 427830 395630
Medieval SET RUR CRU 427850 395620
Medieval SET RUR CRU 428600 395300
Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 429227 395809
Medieval SET RUR CRU 429060 395070
1132870 Medieval SET RUR CRU 429080 395110
Medieval SET RUR CRU 429090 395130
1192742 Medieval SET RUR CRU 424912 392464
1314560 Post-medieval SET RUR 424878 392456
Medieval SET RUR CRU 423420 391500
1132868 Medieval SET RUR CRU 423703 390368
Medieval SET RUR CRU 429188 394653
1132820 Post-medieval SET RUR 429150 394650
1286629 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 426455 393146
Medieval SET RUR CRU 429760 393420
Medieval SET RUR CRU 429760 393450

Medieval SET RUR CRU 427700 391100
Medieval SET RUR CRU 425870 392840
1132863 Medieval SET RUR CRU 426020 391840
1132864 Post-medieval SET RUR 426010 391840
1132856 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 431300 393310
Medieval SET RUR CRU 430570 392100
Medieval SET RUR CRU 432500 392200
Medieval SET RUR CRU 427040 389780
1192426 Medieval SET RUR CRU 427040 389677
1132842 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 427770 389980
1132843 Medieval SET RUR CRU 427782 389959
1281549 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 427890 389620
Post-medieval SET RUR 427910 389630
Post-medieval SET RUR 427911 389611
Medieval SET RUR CRU 428000 389100
Medieval SET RUR CRU 429660 388360
Medieval SET RUR CRU 429700 386200
Medieval SET RUR CRU 429700 386200
Medieval SET RUR CRU 429500 385300
Medieval SET RUR CRU 428321 384613
Medieval SET RUR CRU 432800 389100
Medieval SET RUR CRU 430140 388240
1132860 Medieval SET RUR CRU 430627 388609
Medieval SET RUR CRU 430400 388600
Medieval SET RUR CRU 430550 388150
Medieval SET RUR CRU 433100 388700
Medieval SET RUR CRU 431500 387400
1247416 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 430800 385998
1247404 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 430812 386014
Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 430800 385800
Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 430800 385800
Medieval SET RUR CRU 431953 387650
Medieval SET RUR CRU 426700 392600
Medieval SET RUR CRU 426700 387600
Medieval SET RUR 420890 399830
1287074 Medieval SET RUR 426921 400173
1151115 Medieval SET RUR CRU 426920 400197
Medieval SET RUR 428600 399600
Medieval SET ELI 432251 390505
Medieval SET ELI 431280 393340
Medieval SET ELI 430500 392000
Medieval SET RUR CRU 428960 385310
Medieval SET RUR CRU 427680 394100
Medieval SET RUR CRU 428260 388680
1132819 Medieval SET RUR CRU 428930 389722
Medieval SET RUR CRU 429990 388540
Medieval SET RUR CRU 430000 388520
Post-medieval IND MET 428750 386950
Post-medieval IND OTH 429120 387270
Post-medieval IND OTH 429120 387270

Post-medieval IND OTH 429120 387270
Post-medieval IND MET 429390 387330
Post-medieval IND MET 429390 387330
Post-medieval IND MET 429390 387330
Post-medieval IND MET 429440 387370
Post-medieval IND MET 429440 387370
Post-medieval IND MET 429440 387370
Post-medieval IND MET 429590 387340
Post-medieval IND PAP 429590 387340
Post-medieval IND PAP 429590 387340
Post-medieval IND PAP 429970 387370
Post-medieval IND PAP 429970 387370
Post-medieval IND PAP 429970 387370
Post-medieval IND MET 430200 387500
Post-medieval IND MET 430200 387500
Post-medieval IND MET 430200 387500
Post-medieval IND MET 430484 387531
Post-medieval IND MET 430710 387570
Medieval IND MET 430890 387610
Post-medieval IND MET 430890 387610
Post-medieval IND MET 431180 387830
Post-medieval IND MET 431180 387830
Post-medieval IND MET 431180 387830
Post-medieval IND MET 431280 387910
Post-medieval IND MET 431280 387910
Post-medieval IND MET 431390 387980
Post-medieval IND MET 431550 388050
Post-medieval IND MET 431550 388050
Post-medieval IND MET 431710 388280
Post-medieval IND MET 431710 388280
Post-medieval IND MET 431900 388340
Post-medieval IND MET 432120 388360
Post-medieval IND OTH 432230 388560
Post-medieval IND OTH 432230 388560
Post-medieval IND MET 432400 388800
Post-medieval IND MET 432400 388800
Post-medieval IND MET 432400 388800
1004804 Post-medieval IND MET 432480 389080
1004804 Post-medieval IND MET 432480 389080
Post-medieval IND MET 432480 389080
Post-medieval IND MET 432510 389230
Medieval IND OTH 426360 391850
Post-medieval IND OTH 428006 390704
Post-medieval IND MET 427944 390806
Post-medieval IND MET 428223 390782
Post-medieval IND MET 428680 390420
Post-medieval IND MET 429150 390180
Post-medieval IND MET 429150 390180
Post-medieval IND MET 429150 390180
Post-medieval IND MET 429150 390180

Post-medieval IND MET 429500 389800
Post-medieval IND MET 429900 389550
Post-medieval IND OTH 429540 389120
Post-medieval IND MET 429980 389500
1132866 Post-medieval IND MET 430448 389452
1132866 Post-medieval IND PAP 430450 389450
1132866 Post-medieval IND MET 430449 389453
Post-medieval IND MET 430814 389388
1019857, 1132839 Post-medieval IND MET 430942 389416
Post-medieval IND MET 431200 389500
Post-medieval IND OTH 431220 389440
Post-medieval IND OTH 431550 389670
Post-medieval IND MET 431780 389670
Post-medieval IND MET 432313 389414
Post-medieval IND MET 432313 389413
Post-medieval IND MET 432313 389411
Post-medieval IND OTH 432540 389357
Post-medieval IND OTH 432546 389355
Post-medieval IND OTH 432540 389354
Post-medieval IND OTH 432534 389359
Post-medieval IND MET 432720 389350
1244947 Post-medieval IND MET 430850 393620
Post-medieval IND OTH 430810 393490
Post-medieval IND MET 430100 393080
Post-medieval IND OTH 430560 393320
Post-medieval IND MET 430840 393140
Post-medieval IND MET 431350 392710
Post-medieval IND MET 431750 392110
Post-medieval IND MET 432640 391690
Post-medieval IND MET 432640 391690
Post-medieval IND PAP 432961 391368
Post-medieval IND MET 432964 391352
Post-medieval IND MET 433100 391200
Post-medieval IND MET 433150 391150
Post-medieval IND OTH 433250 391000
Post-medieval IND MET 433250 391020
Post-medieval IND MET 433250 391020
Romano-British AGR DIV 430300 397700
Post-medieval SET INS REL 432251 390505
Post-medieval SET RUR 429206 395799
1287076 Post-medieval SET ELI 427457 399707
Post-medieval SET RUR 427390 397520
1314556 Post-medieval SET ELI 423180 389610
1151801 Post-medieval IND MET 428470 399810
Medieval SET RUR 429670 388380
1191464 Post-medieval SET ELI 426130 400630
Post-medieval SET RUR 422800 400720
Post-medieval SET RUR 427970 389990
1261011 Post-medieval TRA INF 429987 389503
Iron Age PRE 430308 398461

Unknown AGR DIV 428200 385100
Prehistoric PRE 427120 386500
Neolithic PRE 426290 386900
Prehistoric PRE 428482 384897
Prehistoric PRE 426200 387300
Post-medieval IND OTH 425800 398400
Post-medieval IND OTH 423748 399705
Romano-British IND EXT 431100 387500
Bronze Age PRE FIN 430300 386800
Early medieval SET ELI 430600 386300
Romano-British IND EXT 430200 397100
Prehistoric PRE 426300 387200
Prehistoric PRE 426300 386800
Unknown AGR DIV 426300 386800
Prehistoric PRE 427100 386400
Prehistoric PRE 427100 386400
1004801 Romano-British AGR DIV 429952 398847
Prehistoric PRE FIN 426900 384300
Romano-British IND MET 425730 396160
Post-medieval TRA ROU 423280 399470
Bronze Age PRE 424800 393910
Post-medieval IND MET 430690 396390
Prehistoric PRE 430440 394760
Bronze Age PRE 423840 396350
Post-medieval IND MET 433500 390900
1016623 Prehistoric PRE 426930 386250
Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 428820 397900
1020626 Medieval IND MET 429060 399530
Post-medieval IND OTH 429760 399140
Post-medieval SET INS INS 430310 398890
Post-medieval SET RUR 430220 398690
Iron Age PRE FIN 429800 398400
Iron Age PRE FIN 429700 398400
Iron Age PRE FIN 429900 398700
1193148 Post-medieval SET RUR 424612 398452
1193158 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 424590 398422
1132804 Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 424609 398433
1286318 Post-medieval SET RUR 427857 397444
Post-medieval SET ELI 429275 395780
Post-medieval SET RUR 427834 397426
1193208 Post-medieval SET RUR 428536 397384
1132809 Post-medieval SET ELI 430545 395618
1240678 Post-medieval SET RUR 426949 396445
Post-medieval SET RUR 426457 398207
Unknown SET PAT 425180 397500
Unknown SET PAT 425250 397470
Medieval IND MET 425730 398300
Medieval IND MET 425785 398384
Medieval IND MET 425740 398400
1254579 Post-medieval SET INS INS 432074 390757

Medieval SET INS REL 428100 385130
Medieval SET INS REL 423480 399580
Unknown SET INS REL 430500 387740
Unknown SET INS REL 423500 394700
Unknown SET INS REL 430540 396090
Unknown SET INS REL 428270 396970
Post-medieval WAT 423700 399670
Post-medieval IND OTH 425400 399200
Post-medieval IND OTH 423179 399964
Medieval AGR DIV 427700 396900
Post-medieval SET RUR 426760 389410
1270843 Post-medieval SET RUR 429279 385097
Post-medieval SET URB 430820 387730
Medieval IND OTH 425800 398500
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419400 399300
Post-medieval SET RUR 426300 392900
Post-medieval SET RUR 426000 391900
Post-medieval SET RUR CRU 430000 388500
Post-medieval SET ELI 433044 388651
Post-medieval SET ELI 432200 386700
Post-medieval SET RUR 431110 387850
Medieval SET RUR 430650 386510
Post-medieval AGR REC 424900 386630
Post-medieval AGR REC 426300 387300
Post-medieval SET RUR 421117 400447
1151081 Post-medieval SET PUB 421260 400460
1191522 Post-medieval SET RUR 421930 401488
1151079 Post-medieval SET RUR 421916 401470
1151082 Post-medieval SET RUR 421152 400427
1191559 Post-medieval SET RUR 421210 400430
1132859, 1286604 Post-medieval SET INS REL 429620 388680
Bronze Age PRE 426300 386900
Bronze Age PRE 426200 387200
1191539 Post-medieval SET RUR 423633 399827
Post-medieval SET ELI 424890 395765
1132808 Post-medieval SET RUR 425490 399180
Post-medieval IND OTH 430170 394070
1132827 Post-medieval SET RUR 428919 387671
1314538 Post-medieval SET RUR 427962 388927
1132865, 1314539 Post-medieval SET ELI 429170 387770
1286936 Post-medieval SET RUR 430120 392890
1132878 Post-medieval SET RUR 428680 391580
1286866 Post-medieval SET RUR 429782 393369
1314543 Post-medieval SET RUR 429806 393377
1191778 Post-medieval SET RUR 424320 391970
1132875 Post-medieval SET RUR 428090 390160
1191934 Post-medieval SET URB 426386 391880
1132838 Post-medieval SET RUR 426170 391980
Post-medieval SET INS REL 426310 391770
1192191 Post-medieval SET PUB 422270 390618

1192204 Post-medieval SET RUR 424840 395160
1132850, 1132851 Post-medieval SET ELI 431250 392340
1192249 Post-medieval SET RUR 427124 395511
1192462 Post-medieval SET RUR 429980 388820
1132855 Post-medieval TRA INF 428120 393510
1132857 Post-medieval TRA INF 424510 394800
1286765 Post-medieval SET RUR 423390 399450
1314557 Post-medieval TRA INF 429000 395050
1286884 Post-medieval SET RUR 428320 387736
Iron Age PRE 429600 398100
Post-medieval IND EXT 421200 401100
Post-medieval SET RUR 426220 397720
Post-medieval SET INS REL 428040 399460
Modern MIL DEF 430000 385800
Post-medieval SET RUR 424610 398442
Post-medieval SET RUR 424584 398440
Post-medieval SET RUR 424592 398461
Post-medieval SET INS REL 428510 392230
1132800 Medieval SET RUR 427176 396824
Post-medieval TRA INF 425785 400425
Medieval TRA ROU 419555 400945
Medieval TRA ROU 419555 400945
1191772 Post-medieval SET INS REL 430230 388430
Medieval SET ELI 432250 390510
1193130 Medieval TRA INF 425230 398290
1281510 Post-medieval TRA INF 429220 394320
Medieval TRA ROU 423000 398500
Medieval TRA ROU 423000 398500
Post-medieval TRA INF 423135 388295
Post-medieval IND MET 429200 387700
Post-medieval IND MET 430300 388700
Post-medieval SET RUR 430900 388900
Post-medieval SET RUR 424280 395850
1132818 Post-medieval SET RUR 425520 391020
Medieval SET INS LAW 426830 392500
1192353 Medieval TRA INF 426010 394120
Romano-British TRA ROU 423100 385300
Romano-British TRA ROU 423100 385300
Post-medieval IND EXT 431200 390600
Early medieval SET INS REL 427089 396786
Early medieval SET INS REL 426300 392000
Medieval SET INS REL 427800 390350
1012158 Medieval SET INS REL 421609 392869
Mesolithic PRE FIN 417500 399900
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419250 398320
Neolithic PRE FIN 419250 398320
Bronze Age PRE FIN 419260 398270
Prehistoric PRE FIN 419950 396840
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419370 399270
Prehistoric PRE FIN 419500 399900

Mesolithic PRE FIN 419570 399910
Bronze Age PRE FIN 419710 399920
Bronze Age PRE FIN 419220 398450
Prehistoric PRE FIN 425800 393500
Romano-British FIN 426650 392710
Romano-British FIN 426600 392700
Prehistoric PRE FIN 426600 392700
Romano-British FIN 427100 392300
Neolithic PRE FIN 427500 391140
Neolithic PRE FIN 429200 394300
Neolithic PRE FIN 428990 391890
Mesolithic PRE FIN 425900 393900
Mesolithic PRE FIN 426000 394100
Mesolithic PRE FIN 426100 394200
Neolithic PRE FIN 427500 398100
Neolithic PRE FIN 426600 397200
Unknown FIN 426900 396600
Neolithic PRE FIN 425500 398000
Iron Age PRE FIN 426400 396700
Bronze Age PRE FIN 426950 396690
Romano-British FIN 427420 396190
Romano-British FIN 429200 395700
Neolithic PRE FIN 425060 399470
Bronze Age PRE FIN 424500 394500
Iron Age PRE FIN 424700 394600
Prehistoric PRE FIN 420349 391220
Bronze Age PRE FIN 422700 394900
Mesolithic PRE FIN 422840 394880
Mesolithic PRE FIN 421630 394610
Mesolithic PRE FIN 422800 394900
Bronze Age PRE 422790 398340
Prehistoric PRE FIN 422000 395000
Bronze Age PRE FIN 424520 396050
Romano-British FIN 424000 396000
Romano-British FIN 423000 396000
Bronze Age PRE FIN 423550 395400
Bronze Age PRE FIN 422800 395060
Bronze Age PRE FIN 420970 396440
Prehistoric PRE FIN 423100 395300
Bronze Age PRE FIN 423560 396150
Prehistoric PRE FIN 423270 396070
Bronze Age PRE FIN 421000 399700
Neolithic PRE FIN 422400 399200
Bronze Age PRE FIN 424310 387910
Mesolithic PRE FIN 426004 388000
Bronze Age PRE FIN 429600 387500
Bronze Age PRE FIN 426100 388400
Romano-British FIN 426800 389200
Neolithic PRE FIN 425800 385500
Mesolithic PRE FIN 428000 387300

Mesolithic PRE FIN 429500 386800
Romano-British FIN 428388 386381
Romano-British FIN 428764 387531
Romano-British FIN 428763 387538
Iron Age PRE FIN 427300 387600
Bronze Age PRE FIN 428700 386400
Mesolithic PRE FIN 426700 386900
Medieval FIN 427137 396821
Medieval FIN 426700 392500
Medieval FIN 424370 391980
Medieval SET INS REL 423980 399320
Mesolithic PRE FIN 430400 396900
Romano-British FIN 431100 392400
Mesolithic PRE FIN 423700 384900
Mesolithic PRE FIN 425400 384000
Neolithic PRE FIN 432566 388159
Bronze Age PRE 432631 387932
Bronze Age PRE 432630 387932
Bronze Age PRE FIN 432631 387932
Bronze Age PRE FIN 432630 387932
Bronze Age PRE FIN 432630 387932
Bronze Age PRE FIN 432631 387932
Romano-British FIN 432600 388900
Neolithic PRE FIN 430900 387800
Neolithic PRE FIN 432800 388400
Bronze Age PRE FIN 433100 388400
Neolithic PRE FIN 432710 388890
Romano-British FIN 431870 387100
Romano-British FIN 431700 389700
Bronze Age PRE FIN 432390 387780
Mesolithic PRE FIN 424900 384700
Mesolithic PRE FIN 424000 388500
Mesolithic PRE FIN 424000 388500
Mesolithic PRE FIN 421200 397300
Mesolithic PRE FIN 419400 399400
Romano-British FIN 429300 386250
Romano-British FIN 429300 386250
Neolithic PRE FIN 430100 386000
Medieval FIN 424400 399300
Medieval FIN 431100 386000
Post-medieval FIN 430300 397600
Romano-British TRA ROU 447434 396290
Bronze Age PRE 423771 396406
Medieval TRA ROU 423787 400352
Post-medieval SET REL 432174 390673
Modern MIL DEF 425002 396955
Modern MIL TRA 427771 385964
1417488 Modern MIL TRA 425332 385826
Post-medieval IND OTH 429001 388683
Post-medieval IND EXT 429358 394254

Post-medieval IND EXT 427382 392823
Prehistoric PRE 425620 393865
Medieval AGR AGR 424064 398568
Post-medieval TRA ROU 425785 396585
Medieval TRA ROU 425500 397004
Post-medieval SET RUR 425183 396848
Post-medieval TRA ROU 424925 396784
Post-medieval TRA ROU 424925 396784
Post-medieval TRA ROU 424925 396784
Post-medieval TRA ROU 424925 396784
Post-medieval TRA ROU 424925 396784
Post-medieval TRA ROU 424925 396784
Post-medieval TRA ROU 424925 396784
Post-medieval TRA ROU 424925 396784
Post-medieval TRA ROU 424925 396784
Post-medieval SET RUR 425171 396635
Modern MIL DEF 422554 398780
Modern MIL DEF 422832 398445
Medieval TRA ROU 422326 397903
Modern MIL DEF 422825 397953
Modern MIL DEF 422825 397953
Post-medieval AGR REC 423646 397775
Post-medieval SET RUR 423044 397789
Post-medieval TRA ROU 423904 397533
Post-medieval SET RUR 423439 397570
Post-medieval TRA ROU 421987 396314
Post-medieval TRA ROU 421987 396314
Post-medieval TRA ROU 421987 396314
Medieval TRA ROU 424140 395444
Post-medieval TRA ROU 421650 394629
Post-medieval AGR AGR 423340 395609
Post-medieval IND EXT 424362 390984
Post-medieval TRA ROU 423876 390829
Post-medieval IND EXT 423667 390233
Post-medieval IND EXT 423589 390461
Post-medieval SET RUR 423374 390469
Post-medieval SET RUR 422478 389935
Post-medieval AGR AGR 426473 389269
Post-medieval IND MET 433339 391546
Post-medieval IND OTH 427543 398464
Multiperiod FIN 431984 387815
Post-medieval SET INS 432211 386508
Post-medieval AGR REC 432181 386471
Post-medieval AGR REC 431072 386772
1270907 Post-medieval SET ELI 432631 386620
Post-medieval AGR REC 432631 386620
Post-medieval IND MET 426749 398844
Modern WAT 426244 391704
Medieval IND MET 423613 388652
1018590 Prehistoric PRE 423814 396406

Romano-British SET PAT 430469 396635
Iron Age PRE 420633 400818
Bronze Age PRE 420905 397367
Iron Age PRE 428385 390230
Iron Age PRE 428694 393689
1132869 Post-medieval SET CRU 427902 390452
Multiperiod IND MET 431893 389538
1004803, 1132805 Post-medieval IND OTH 426607 398031
1017833 Prehistoric PRE 424991 394178
Post-medieval AGR REC 432949 386588
1132849 Post-medieval SET ELI 424567 396028
Post-medieval AGR AGR 426999 392310

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Report prepared by:
ECUS Ltd.
Brook Holt
3 Blackburn Road
Sheffield
S61 2DW
0114 266 9292
January 2018

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
ECUS Ltd
Report to:
Report Title:
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Lakelands – Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Revision: v.1
Issue Date: January 2018
Report Ref: Project No.: 10793
Originated By:
Reviewed By:
Alex Cassels
Heritage Consultant Date: 18/12/2017
Approved By:
Paul White
Head of Heritage Date: 25/01/2018
Paul White
Head of Heritage Date: 26/01/2018
Prepared by:
ECUS Ltd.
Brook Holt
3 Blackburn Road
Sheffield
S61 2DW
0114 2669292
The report and the site assessments carried out by ECUS on behalf of the client in accordance with the agreed terms of
contract and/or written agreement form the agreed Services. The Services were performed by ECUS with the skill and
care ordinarily exercised by a reasonable Environmental Consultant at the time the Services were performed. Further,
and in particular, the Services were performed by ECUS taking into account the limits of the scope of works required by
the client, the time scale involved and the resources, including financial and manpower resources, agreed between
ECUS and the client.
Other than that expressly contained in the paragraph above, ECUS provides no other representation or warranty
whether express or implied, in relation to the services.
This report is produced exclusively for the purposes of the client. ECUS is not aware of any interest of or reliance by any
party other than the client in or on the services. Unless expressly provided in writing, ECUS does not authorise, consent
or condone any party other than the client relying upon the services provided. Any reliance on the services or any part of
the services by any party other than the client is made wholly at that party’s own and sole risk and ECUS disclaims any
liability to such parties.
This report is based on site conditions, regulatory or other legal provisions, technology or economic conditions at the
time of the Service provision. These conditions can change with time and reliance on the findings of the Services under
changing conditions should be reviewed.
ECUS accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of third party data used in this report.
ii

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Executive Summary
Ecus Ltd were commissioned by the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust in
November 2017 to undertake a series of archaeological walkover surveys within
woodlands contained within the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape centred on National
Grid Reference (NGR) 426122, 392739.
The archaeological woodland surveys aimed to produce a gazetteer of heritage assets
contained within 24 individual woodlands that are situated within the area of the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape. These gazetteers, in combination with evidence
provided by the South Yorkshire Sites and Monuments Record and historic mapping,
aim to inform management recommendations for any identified archaeological remains
present within each woodland.
The woodland surveys identified a total of 133 individual or groups of features within
the 24 woodland sites. Only a single woodland, Yew Trees Lane, was found to not
contain any identifiable archaeological features. The majority of the sites have
previously been used as agricultural land and consequently the vast majority of the
identified features can be attributed to former land boundaries within the post-medieval
field systems prior to the establishment of the woodlands during the mid-twentieth
century. It is recommended that any future forestry works attempt to preserve these
features wherever it is feasible.
The surveys did identify a number of heritage assets of at least regional significance.
Alongside the southern boundary of White Lee Moor is a Grade II Listed guide pillar
(NHLE: 1192353) and although this designated heritage asset is unlikely to be
impacted by any future forestry works it is considered that care must be taken to
ensure that this feature is not damaged.
Other sites of regional significance include the structural remains of the World War Two
Redmires prisoner of war camp within Redmires Camp, the sites of post-medieval
houses including Wigtwizzle Hall, Lords Seat and Rocher End. These sites are all
located within their individual woodlands and careful management is required to ensure
these assets are not significantly affected by any future forestry works.
iii

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Background ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Site Locations and Geology ............................................................................... 1
2. Methodology .................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Aims and Objectives .......................................................................................... 2
2.2 Standards and Scope ........................................................................................ 2
2.3 Fieldwork Methodology ...................................................................................... 2
2.4 Assessment of Significance and Conservation Objectives ................................. 3
2.5 Management Recommendations ....................................................................... 4
3. Agden House Wood ........................................................................................ 6
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ......................................................... 6
3.3 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 6
Management Recommendations ..................................................................... 6
4. Broomhead Park .............................................................................................. 9
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ......................................................... 9
4.3 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 9
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 10
5. Doe House Wood ........................................................................................... 13
5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 13
5.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 13
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 13
6. Dwarriden ....................................................................................................... 16
6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 16
6.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 16
6.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 17
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 17
7. Dwarriden Lane ............................................................................................. 18
7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 20
7.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 20
7.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 20
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 21
8. Eleven Acre Plantation .................................................................................. 24
8.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 24
8.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 24
8.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 24
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 24
9. Fairthorn Green ............................................................................................. 27
9.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 27
iv

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
9.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 27
9.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 27
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 27
10. Lee Lane ......................................................................................................... 30
10.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 30
10.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 30
10.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 30
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 30
11. Lords Seat ...................................................................................................... 33
11.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 33
11.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 33
11.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 33
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 33
12. Low Ash Common ......................................................................................... 37
12.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 37
12.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 37
12.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 37
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 38
13. More Hall Reservoir ....................................................................................... 41
13.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 41
13.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 41
13.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 41
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 42
14. Raynor Clough ............................................................................................... 45
14.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 45
14.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 45
14.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 45
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 45
15. Redmires Camp ............................................................................................. 48
15.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 48
15.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 48
15.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 49
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 49
16. Redmires Reservoir ....................................................................................... 52
16.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 52
16.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 52
16.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 52
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 53
17. Rivelin Lodge Plantation ............................................................................... 56
17.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 56
17.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 56
17.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 56
17.4 Management Recommendations ..................................................................... 56
v

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
18. Rocher End Plantation .................................................................................. 60
18.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 60
18.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 60
18.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 60
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 60
19. Thompson House Plantation ........................................................................ 64
19.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 64
19.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 64
19.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 64
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 64
20. White Lee Moor .............................................................................................. 67
20.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 67
20.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 67
20.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 67
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 67
21. Wigtwizzle ...................................................................................................... 71
21.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 71
21.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 71
21.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 71
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 71
22. Wigtwizzle Hall ............................................................................................... 74
22.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 74
22.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 74
22.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 74
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 75
23. Windy Bank .................................................................................................... 79
23.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 79
23.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 79
23.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 79
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 79
24. Windy Bank Wood ......................................................................................... 82
24.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 82
24.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 82
24.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 82
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 82
25. Wragg House Plantation ............................................................................... 85
25.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 85
25.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 85
25.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 86
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 86
26. Yew Trees Lane ............................................................................................. 90
26.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 90
26.2 Archaeological and Historical Background ....................................................... 90
26.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 90
vi

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Management Recommendations ................................................................... 90
27. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 93
27.1 Discussion ....................................................................................................... 93
28. References ..................................................................................................... 94
Plates
Plate 1: Former boundary wall within Agden House Wood ................................ 7
Plate 2: Gateway with two gateposts within Agden House Wood ...................... 7
Plate 3: Former field boundary wall in Broomhead Park .................................. 11
Plate 4: Bank in east of Broomhead Park ........................................................ 11
Plate 5: Bank (301) in southern section of Doe House Wood .......................... 14
Plate 6: View of earthworks (302) in Doe House Wood ................................... 14
Plate 7: Water channel running alongside Mill Lane ........................................ 18
Plate 8: Ruined agricultural building (401) ....................................................... 18
Plate 9: Former field boundary in Dwarriden Lane ........................................... 22
Plate 10:
Blocked gateway to former site of Rural Cottage from Dwarriden
Lane ................................................................................................... 22
Plate 11: Quarrying pit in Eleven Acre Plantation .............................................. 25
Plate 12: Hollow way in southeast of Fairthorn Green ....................................... 28
Plate 13: Sunken tank in Fairthorn Green .......................................................... 28
Plate 14: Truncated boundary wall in Lee Lane ................................................. 31
Plate 15: Structural rubble associated with remains of Lords Seat .................... 35
Plate 16: View into cellars of Lords Seat ........................................................... 35
Plate 17: Quarrying activity within Low Ash Common ........................................ 39
Plate 18: Former field boundary wall in More Hall Reservoir ............................. 43
Plate 19: Blocked gateway on Fairhurst Lane with trough ................................. 43
Plate 20: Former field boundary wall in Raynor Clough ..................................... 46
Plate 21: Structural remains of Redmires prisoner of war camp ........................ 50
Plate 22: Building footprint with steps up to former entrance ............................. 50
Plate 23: Structural remains (1402) in Redmires Reservoir ............................... 54
Plate 24: Footpath lined by two former boundary walls ...................................... 54
Plate 25: Raised platform (1501) in Rivelin Lodge Plantation ............................ 58
Plate 26: Quarrying pit in Rivelin Lodge Plantation ............................................ 58
Plate 27: Structural remains of Rocher End ....................................................... 62
Plate 28: Structural remains of Rocher End ....................................................... 62
Plate 29: Former field boundary wall in Thompson House Plantation ................ 65
Plate 30: Small brick structure (1707)................................................................ 65
Plate 31: Grade II Listed guide pillar (NHLE: 1192353) ..................................... 69
Plate 32: Quarrying pit in White Lee Moor ......................................................... 69
Plate 33: Truncated former field boundary wall in Wigtwizzle ............................ 72
Plate 34: Site of Wigtwizzle Hall ........................................................................ 76
Plate 35: Former gateway to Wigtwizzle Hall ..................................................... 76
Plate 36: Former field boundary wall in Wigtwizzle Hall ..................................... 77
Plate 37: Bank (2101) in Windy Bank ................................................................ 80
Plate 38: Former field boundary wall in Windy Bank Wood ................................ 83
Plate 39: Gatepost for gateway to Former Agden House ................................... 83
Plate 40: Former field boundary wall in Wragg House Plantation ...................... 87
Plate 41: Agricultural equipment within Wragg House Plantation ...................... 87
Plate 42: Roger Lane in Wragg House Plantation ............................................. 88
Plate 43: Survey conditions in Yew Trees Lane at time of survey ...................... 92
vii

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Tables
Table 1: Levels of archaeological significance (following Keen and Carreck
1987) .................................................................................................... 4
Table 2: Categories of Conservation Objectives ................................................. 4
Table 3: Identified features in Agden House Wood............................................. 8
Table 4: Identified features in Broomhead Park ................................................ 12
Table 5: Identified features in Doe House Wood .............................................. 15
Table 6: Identified features in Dwarriden .......................................................... 19
Table 7: Identified features in Dwarriden Lane ................................................. 23
Table 8: Identified features in Eleven Acre Plantation ...................................... 26
Table 9: Identified features in Fairthorn Green ................................................. 29
Table 10: Identified features in Lee Lane ........................................................... 32
Table 11: Identified features in Lords Seat ......................................................... 36
Table 12: Identified features in Low Ash Common ............................................. 40
Table 13: Identified features in More Hall Reservoir ........................................... 44
Table 14: Identified features in Raynor Clough ................................................... 47
Table 15: Identified features in Redmires Camp ................................................. 51
Table 16: Identified features in Redmires Reservoir ........................................... 55
Table 17: Identified features in Rivelin Lodge Plantation .................................... 59
Table 18: Identified features in Rocher End Plantation ....................................... 63
Table 19: Identified features in Thompson House Plantation .............................. 66
Table 20: Identified features in White Lee Moor ................................................. 70
Table 21: Identified features in Wigtwizzle ......................................................... 73
Table 22: Identified features in Wigtwizzle Hall .................................................. 78
Table 23: Identified features in Windy Bank ....................................................... 81
Table 24: Identified features in Windy Bank Wood ............................................. 84
Table 25: Identified features in Wragg House Plantation .................................... 89
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:
Figure 13:
Figure 14:
Figure 15:
Figure 16:
Figure 17:
Figure 18:
Figure 19:
Figure 20:
Figure 21:
Figure 22:
Figure 23:
Figure 24:
Figures
Site Locations
Agden House Wood
Broomhead Park
Doe House Wood
Dwarriden
Dwarriden Lane
Eleven Acre Plantation
Fairthorn Green
Lee Lane
Lords Seat
Low Ash Common
More Hall Reservoir
Raynor Clough
Redmires Camp
Redmires Reservoir
Rivelin Lodge Plantation
Rocher End Plantation
Thompson House Plantation
White Lee Moor
Wigtwizzle
Wigtwizzle Hall
Windy Bank
Windy Bank Wood
Wragg House Plantation
viii

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
1. Introduction
1.1 Project Background
1.1.1 Ecus Ltd were commissioned by the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust in
November 2017 to undertake a series of archaeological surveys within woodlands
contained within the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape centred on National Grid
Reference (NGR) 426122, 392739.
1.1.2 The archaeological woodland surveys aimed to produce a gazetteer of heritage
assets contained within 24 individual woodlands that are within the area of the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape. These gazetteers, in combination with evidence
provided by the South Yorkshire Sites and Monuments Record and historic mapping,
aim to inform management recommendations for any identified archaeological
remains present within each woodland.
1.1.3 The woodland surveys were carried out between November 2017 and January 2018.
1.2 Site Locations and Geology
1.2.1 The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape (Figure 1) is located to the west of the city of
Sheffield and stretches from the western outskirts of the city in the east to Peak
District National Park in the west, and Langsett in the north to the Redmires
Reservoirs in the south. It covers an area of approximately 12,250 hectares.
1.2.2 The landscape contains several reservoirs, established during the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries in order to meet the requirements for drinking water within the
expanding city. The woodlands surveyed (Figure 1) are largely located in proximity
to these reservoirs, specifically the Redmires, Rivelin, Dale Dike, Agden, Broomhead
and More Hall Reservoirs. The woodlands cover an area of approximately 200 ha
(1.6% of the Lakelands area).
1.2.3 The underlying geology of the woodlands is mapped as mudstone, sandstone and
siltstone of the Millstone Grit Group with the exception of Low Ash Common where
the underlying geology is mapped as mudstone, siltstone and sandstone of the
Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation (British Geological Survey 2017).
1.2.4 Further details on individual site locations and their topography are provided within
the relevant chapter covering each woodland parcel.
1

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
2. Methodology
2.1 Aims and Objectives
2.1.1 The aims of the archaeological woodland survey were to:
Identify known archaeological and historical sites within the woodlands
Identify areas with the potential to contain any unrecorded archaeological
remains
Propose measures for the management of the historic environment within
the woodlands
2.1.2 The aims of, and methodology for, the project were outlined in a project brief
prepared by the South Yorkshire Archaeology Service (SYAS).
2.2 Standards and Scope
2.2.1 The initial step of the woodland assessment was to identify known heritage assets
within each site and its immediate environs. The spatial scope of the assessment
was defined by a 200 m study area around each site.
2.2.2 The following sources were consulted to inform the presence of heritage assets
within the study area, and to form a baseline for the assessment of their significance:
National heritage datasets including The National Heritage List for England
(NHLE), Images of England, PastScape, Viewfinder, NMR Excavation
Index, and Parks and Gardens UK.
South Yorkshire Sites and Monuments Record (SYSMR), comprising a
database of all recorded archaeological sites, findspots and archaeological
events within the county;
Historic Ordnance Survey maps held by Sheffield Local Studies Library;
and
Relevant primary and secondary sources including published and
unpublished archaeological reports relating to excavations and
observations in the area around the application area were studied.
2.3 Fieldwork Methodology
2.3.1 The site visits were undertaken between November 2017 and January 2018. The
timing of the walkover surveys, during late autumn and winter, meant that the
majority of the undergrowth within the woodlands had died back allowing good
visibility. However, in some areas survey conditions were variable due to a number of
factors. These included flooded ground conditions, thick bramble undergrowth,
densely planted trees in areas of regenerated woodland, and wind felled trees
particularly on the windward side of a woodland.
2.3.2 The prevailing survey conditions encountered during the woodland surveys are
defined as follows:
Good – movement and visibility not impeded by ground conditions,
undergrowth or trees
2

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Moderate – movement and visibility slightly impeded by ground conditions,
undergrowth, or density of trees
Poor – movement and visibility extremely limited due to ground conditions,
density of undergrowth or trees, or wind-felled trees
2.3.3 The date and survey conditions for each walkover survey are recorded within the
relevant chapter covering each site. Fieldwork was undertaken in line with current
Historic England guidance (Historic England 2017) and to the standards set out by
the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA 2014).
2.4 Assessment of Significance
2.4.1 The significance of heritage assets is defined in terms of their value to this and future
generations because of their heritage interest, deriving not only from their physical
presence, but also from their setting. Based upon Historic England’s Conservation
Principles (2017) the significance of a heritage assets is described as being a
combination of archaeological, architectural, artistic and historic values:
Archaeological interest: derives from the presence or potential for
evidence of past human activities worthy of expert investigation at some
point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source
of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people
and cultures that made them.
Architectural interest: derives from the architectural design, decoration or
craftsmanship of a heritage asset. Architectural interest may also apply to
nationally important examples of particular building types and techniques
and significant plan forms.
Artistic interest: derives from interest in the design and general aesthetics
of a place. It can arise from conscious design or fortuitously from the way
the place has evolved. More specifically, architectural interest is an interest
in the art or science of the design, construction, craftmanship and
decoration of buildings and structures of all types. Artistic interest is an
interest in other human creative skill, like sculpture.
Historic interest: derives from the ways in which past people, events and
aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present. It tends to
be illustrative or associative. Considers documentation, wider context,
regional factors, and group value of the site.
2.4.2 The overall significance of a heritage asset is the sum of its heritage values,
expressed as national, regional or local. Within this report the monuments are
categorised into a series of levels which follow the methodology developed for the
Weld Estate, Dorset (Keen and Carreck 1987) and follows the brief outlined by
SYAS. The levels, signifying both a feature's importance and the general
consideration that it should be given, are outlined in Table 1.
3

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 1: Levels of archaeological significance (following Keen and
Carreck 1987)
Level
Level I
Level IB
Level II
Level IIB
Description
Archaeological and historical features of special (i.e.
national/regional) importance that warrant the greatest
possible protection.
Level I monuments that appear to have been badly
damaged.
Archaeological and historical features of lesser (i.e.
local) importance.
Level II monuments that appear to have been badly
damaged.
Level III Former archaeological and historical features of
importance for which there is confidence that no
coherent archaeological remains (including buried
features) are recoverable
2.5 Conservation Objectives and Management Recommendations
2.5.1 The general conservation objectives for each feature follow those outlined within the
SYAS brief and are outlined within Table 2. These categories outline the preferred
heritage outcomes during and following future forestry works within the woodland
sites.
Table 2:
Category
Category I
Category II
Category III
Categories of Conservation Objectives
Objectives
to prevent the feature being damaged, altered or
tipped on;
to encourage positive management through
active conservation in association with woodland
management by the landowners.
to retain features in this category wherever
possible;
to make provision for consultation if proposals are
being considered that might affect or alter a
feature;
to allow for and/or assist with the recording of
features affected by a change in land use or any
development.
All archaeological potential lost. No constraint on
woodland management operations. Amend records
accordingly.
2.5.2 The project has aimed to identify sites of archaeological potential within each site and
recommend appropriate management techniques to provide suitable protection for
the identified heritage assets. Activities undertaken during forestry works have the
potential to impact upon structural and archaeological remains and these operations
include:
4

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
felling within the woodland may involve the movement of heavy plant within
the woodland which have the potential to move over archaeological
remains;
removal of stumps and soil reversal for habitat restoration has the potential
to impact archaeological deposits to a significant depth;
extant trees have the potential to damage archaeological structures and
deposits through natural root growth
wind-felled trees may damage archaeological deposits which have the
potential to be pulled up with the root plate. Additionally, wind-felled trees
have the potential to crush structural remains
2.5.3 General mitigation measures which can be applied within all woodlands within the
scope of the survey may include:
selective felling to remove trees that may be causing damage to significant
archaeological deposits or standing structures and careful management of
trees deemed susceptible to being wind-felled;
planning of felling operations to include designated trackways in order to
avoid unintentional damage to areas of archaeological potential and
standing structures;
briefing of operators during site inductions of the known heritage resource
within the woodland;
where impacts to known heritage assets is unavoidable, the
implementation of archaeological mitigation measures in consultation with
SYAS.
2.5.4 Site specific recommendations are provided in the relevant sections below and focus
on individual features and groups of features identified during the undertaking of the
woodland surveys.
5

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
3. Agden House Wood
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Agden House Wood is centred on NGR 424793, 392973 and comprises a single
compartment of approximately 6ha. The site is located to the east of Mortimer Road,
to the west of Agden House and Agden Reservoir, and to the north of Emlin Dike.
The underlying geology of the woodland is mapped as sandstone of the Heyden
Rock Formation with no recorded superficial deposits (British Geological Survey
2017). The topography of the woodland slopes from approximately 280m above
Ordnance Datum (aOD) in the northwest to approximately 240m aOD in the
southeast.
3.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 8 th December 2017. Survey conditions were
moderate and a small area of the central portion of the woodland was not able to be
surveyed due to the density of ground vegetation.
3.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
3.2.1 There are no recorded designated or undesignated heritage assets within the site or
within 200m of the woodland.
3.2.2 The first edition of the Ordnance Survey (OS) published in 1855 indicates that the
site was largely open moorland apart from a rectangular field within the southern
portion of the site. By the publication of the second edition OS in 1893 the current
outline of the site had been established by the addition of further rectangular fields.
Subsequent editions of the OS show little change within the area and the woodland
was planted in 1952.
3.2.3 The woodland survey recorded a series of dry stone walls and gateways probably
dating to the late nineteenth century when the cartographic evidence suggests that
the historic field system was established. The walls comprise three east-west aligned
walls and two north-south aligned walls. The identified assets are listed in Table 3
and illustrated in Figure 2.
3.3 Discussion
3.3.1 The only archaeological evidence recorded during the woodland survey were a
series of dry stone walls (Plate 1), and two gateways (Plate 2), which correspond to
the former field system which historic mapping indicates was established during the
late nineteenth century. It is likely that the site was previously moorland prior to the
enclosure of the area. There is currently no archaeological evidence for human
activity predating the late nineteenth century within the site or its immediate environs.
Management Recommendations
3.3.2 It is considered that the walls and gateposts are of local significance as they illustrate
the past use and division of the land prior to the establishment of the woodland in the
1950s. It is recommended that the walls are retained wherever possible during any
future forestry works.
6

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 1:
Former boundary wall within Agden House Wood
Plate 2:
Gateway with two gateposts within Agden House Wood
7

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 3:
Identified features in Agden House Wood
Feature Description Easting Northing
101
102
103
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Significance
Level
424802 393057 II II
424743 392831 II II
424845 392933 II II
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
8

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
4. Broomhead Park
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 Broomhead Park is centred on NGR 425251, 396200 and comprises two
compartments with an area of approximate 4.7ha. The woodland is bounded to the
southeast by Allas Lane, to the northwest by Park Brook, to the northeast by Ewden
Beck and to the southwest by agricultural land. The underlying geology of the
woodland is mapped as mudstone and siltstone of the Marsden Formation in the east
and sandstone of the Heyden Rock Formation in the west. There are no recorded
superficial deposits (British Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the
woodland slopes from approximately 220m aOD in the southwest to approximately
180m aOD in the northeast.
4.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 3 rd January 2018 and survey conditions were good
to moderate.
4.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
4.2.1 The SYSMR records the findspot of a scatter of Romano-British and medieval pottery
(MSY10876) approximately 200m to the east of the woodland. Approximately 50m to
the west of the woodland is the boundary of the post-medieval park (MSY6757)
associated with Broomhead Hall. The most recent hall, built in the Jacobean Revival
style, was demolished in the 1970s but there are records of a hall at Broomhead from
the early fourteenth century.
4.2.2 The first edition OS of 1855 shows the woodland as subdivided between five fields
with Allas Lane running to the south on a different alignment to its current course.
Broomhead Park is shown further to the west and the area north of Allas Lane is
named as Allas. The 1894 and 1905 OS maps show little change within the area.
Broomhead Reservoir was constructed in 1929 and is first depicted on the 1932 OS
map. The construction of the reservoir resulted in the realignment of Allas Lane to its
modern course with the former route preserved as Allas Dike Lane. Little change is
visible within the area until the woodland was planted in 1963.
4.2.3 The woodland survey identified two dry stone walls (Plate 3) which align with former
field boundaries marked on the first edition OS. The survey also identified a bank
(Plate 4) in the northeast of the woodland which correlates with an adjoining field
boundary to the north of the site. It was not possible to determine the exact function
of the bank but its location in close proximity to Ewden Beck suggests that the bank
may have protected agricultural land to the west being flooded during high water
levels. The identified assets are listed in Table 4 and illustrated in Figure 3.
4.3 Discussion
4.3.1 The SYSMR records limited evidence for Romano-British activity within the
immediate environs of the site, and the post-medieval boundary of the parkland
associated with Broomhead Hall. The hall had been established by the early
fourteenth century and the SYSMR also records the location of a scatter of fifteenth
century pottery to the east of the woodland.
4.3.2 The only archaeological evidence recorded within the woodland were a series of
former land boundaries which probably date to the post-medieval period and were
9

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
part of the nineteenth century field system depicted on the first edition OS in 1855.
Management Recommendations
4.3.3 It is considered that the features recorded during the woodland survey are of local
significance as they illustrate the past use and division of the land prior to the
establishment of the woodland in the 1960s. It is recommended that the walls are
retained wherever possible during any future forestry works.
10

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 3:
Former field boundary wall in Broomhead Park
Plate 4:
Bank in east of Broomhead Park
11

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 4:
Identified features in Broomhead Park
Feature Description Easting Northing
Significance Conservation
Level
Objective
201 Wall - dry-stone 425305 396234 II II
boundary wall
202 Wall - dry-stone 425180 396176 II II
boundary wall
203 Bank 425301 396316 II II
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
12

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
5. Doe House Wood
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Doe House Wood is centred on NGR 425273, 391506 and comprises a single
compartment with an area of approximately 3.7ha. Blindside Lane is located to the
north of the site and it is bounded on the remaining three sides by agricultural land.
The underlying geology of the woodland is mapped as bands of mudstone and
siltstone of the Marsden and Rossendale Formations and sandstone of the Redmires
Flags Formation. There are no recorded superficial deposits (British Geological
Survey 2017). The topography of the woodland slopes from approximately 230m
aOD in the south to approximately 200m aOD in the north.
5.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 7 th December 2017. Survey conditions were
moderate due to ground conditions and the density of ground vegetation.
5.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
5.2.1 Approximately 300 m northwest of the site is the location of a cruck barn at Walker
House Farm (Grade II Listed; NHLE: 1260969). The SYSMR does not record any
other heritage assets within the immediate vicinity of the area.
5.2.2 The first edition of the OS, published in 1855, depicts the site as split between two
fields. The 1893 OS and 1905 OS maps indicate a series of earthworks had been
established within the plantation. The woodland was planted in 1947 and is depicted
as such within the 1955 OS map. Subsequent editions of the OS show little change
within the site.
5.2.3 The woodland survey identified three earthworks within the site. The northernmost of
these comprised a linear bank orientated east-west before turning to the north (Plate
5). The central earthwork comprises an elongated U-shaped bank aligned east-west.
The southernmost comprises a steep bank orientated east-west before again turning
to the north (Plate 6). The earthworks broadly correspond with those depicted on the
1893 and 1905 OS maps. The northernmost earthwork may be agricultural in origin
and represent a former field boundary. The southernmost earthwork may be
extractive in origin as potential quarried stone and working faces were noted during
the survey. The identified assets are listed in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 4.
5.3 Discussion
5.3.1 The survey identified earthworks which correlate with the historic mapping of the site.
These earthworks do not appear on the first edition OS of 1855 so are likely to date
from the second half of the nineteenth century. The earthworks are considered to be
agricultural or extractive in origin. The SYSMR does not record any archaeological
evidence within the site or its immediate surroundings.
Management Recommendations
5.3.2 It is considered that the features recorded during the woodland survey are of, at
most, local significance and have the potential to be impacted by any future forestry
works. Future survey work may be required in order to record the full extent and
nature of the earthworks.
13

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 5:
Bank (301) in southern section of Doe House Wood
Plate 6:
View of earthworks (302) in Doe House Wood
14

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 5:
Identified features in Doe House Wood
Feature Description Easting Northing
Significance Conservation
Level
Objective
Management Recommendations
301 Bank 425294 391417 II II Photographic and measured
302 Bank 425310 391521 II II
survey prior to forestry works.
303 Bank 425294 391612 II II
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
15

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
6. Dwarriden
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Dwarriden is centred on NGR 426048, 395600 and comprises eight compartments
within an area of approximately 14.3ha. The woodland is bounded to the north and
east by New Road, to the west by Mill Lane, and to the north by Dwarriden Lane and
a mixture of agricultural land and moorland. The underlying geology of the site is
largely mapped as mudstone and siltstone of the Marsden Formation with a band of
sandstone of the Guiseley Grit Formation in the southeast. There are no recorded
superficial deposits (British Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the
woodland slopes from approximately 240m aOD in the southeast to approximately
180m aOD in the north.
6.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 14 th December 2017. Survey conditions were mixed
and were particularly poor in the northwest and northeast of the woodland due to the
density of trees and ground vegetation. These conditions restricted the thoroughness
of the survey in these locations.
6.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
6.2.1 The site is located adjacent to the Grade II Listed Dwarriden Cruck Barn (NHLE:
1132876) which is likely to date from the seventeenth century. The SYSMR does not
record any other heritage assets within the immediate vicinity of the site.
6.2.2 The first edition OS, published in 1855, shows the area as being split between
several fields. Within the southeast of the land parcel an unnamed structure is
depicted whilst to the east of Broomhead Mill Lane a waterway is shown running to
Broomhead Mill to the north of the site. The Mill House, a public house, was located
to the north of the northwestern corner of the site. The 1894 and 1905 OS maps
show limited reorganisation of the field boundaries within the plantation. Following
the construction of the Broomhead Reservoir in 1929, the 1932 OS map shows that
New Road had been constructed along the northern boundary of the woodland and
Broomhead Mill and Mill House had been demolished as part of the construction
process. Little change is visible within the area until the planting of the woodland in
1956.
6.2.3 The woodland survey identified a number of features. These include dry stone walls,
gateposts, a water channel and a ruined agricultural building. The identified assets
are listed in Table 6 and illustrated in Figure 5. Alongside the western boundary of
the woodland is a partially stone lined water channel (Plate 7) which runs along Mill
Lane. It is likely that this water channel led to the former Broomhead Mill, the site of
which is now within Broomhead Reservoir.
6.2.4 The ruined agricultural building (Plate 8) is set within a series of dry-stone walls
which define a small courtyard with a gateway marked by two stone gateposts. The
walls of this building survive to a height of approximately 4m and internal features are
visible including niches in the north wall and a possible cross-passage. The building
is depicted on the first edition OS.
6.2.5 To the north of the agricultural building is a concrete pad with two iron hoops. The
purpose of this feature is uncertain, but probably associated with the wider
agricultural use of the landscape, and it is likely to date to the twentieth century.
Within the remainder of the woodland, a series of dry-stone walls and associated
16

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
gateways were recorded which correspond with the field system depicted on historic
OS maps.
6.3 Discussion
6.3.1 The survey identified features which are depicted on current and historic OS
mapping. The dry-stone walls correspond with the field system indicated on the
cartographic sources following the construction of the Broomhead Reservoir. The
agricultural building recorded in the south of the woodland is depicted on the first
edition OS and therefore dates from the mid-nineteenth century at the latest. The
water channel running alongside Mill Lane formerly fed the Broomhead Mill which
was demolished as part of the construction of the Broomhead Reservoir in the 1930s.
6.3.2 The density of the trees and extensive ground vegetation within the northeast and
northwest of the woodland may have obscured additional earthworks or structural
remains. The poor survey conditions in these sections of the woodland obscured
visibility and restricted movement during the walkover survey.
Management Recommendations
6.3.3 It is considered that the walls and gateposts are of local significance as they illustrate
the past use and division of the land prior to the establishment of the woodland. It is
recommended that the walls are retained wherever possible during any future
forestry works. The agricultural building is also considered to be of local significance.
Future archaeological work could include a programme of building recording in order
to fully determine the form and function of the building. It is anticipated that the water
channel is unlikely to be affected by forestry works due to its position adjacent to Mill
Lane and away from principal access points to the woodland.
17

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 7:
Water channel running alongside Mill Lane
Plate 8: Ruined agricultural building (401)
18

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 6:
Identified features in Dwarriden
Feature Description Easting Northing
Significance Conservation
Level
Objective
Management Recommendations
401 Structure - agricultural
building
426146 395376 II II
402 Wall - dry stone
426205 395539 II II
boundary wall
403 Wall - dry stone
426301 395453 II II
Photographic and measured
404
retaining wall
Wall - dry stone
426091 395443 II II
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
boundary wall
wherever feasible
405 Wall - dry stone
425894 395605 II II
boundary wall
406 Wall - dry stone
425885 395701 II II
boundary wall
407 Water channel 425697 395749 II II
408 Concrete platform 426119 395403 III III Feature of negligible
409 Structure - brick-built 425885 395657 III III
archaeological significance
19

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
7. Dwarriden Lane
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 Dwarriden Lane is centred on NGR 425712, 395418 and comprises three
compartments within an area of approximately 5.1ha. The woodland is bounded to
the north and east by Dwarriden Lane, to the west by further woodland and to the
south by agricultural land. The underlying geology of the site is mapped as mudstone
and siltstone of the Marsden Formation with a band of sandstone of the Heyden
Rock Formation to the south. There are no recorded superficial deposits (British
Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the woodland slopes from
approximately 245m aOD in the south to approximately 195m aOD in the north.
7.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 3 rd January 2018 and survey conditions were good
to moderate.
7.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
7.2.1 The Grade II Listed Dwarriden Cruck Barn (NHLE: 1132876) is located approximately
100m east of the woodland. The building is likely to date from the seventeenth
century. The SYSMR does not record any other heritage assets within the immediate
vicinity of the site.
7.2.2 The first edition OS map of 1855 depicts the woodland parcel as being split between
six fields with a building named as Rural Cottage located in the north of the area.
Subsequent editions of the OS show relatively little change within the land parcel,
with only a field boundary removed by the publication of the 1905 OS map. The 1949
OS map is the last map to show Rural Cottage which had been demolished by the
publication of the 1955 OS map. The woodland was planted in 1956.
7.2.3 The woodland survey recorded a series of dry stone walls (Plate 9) and gateways
probably dating to the late nineteenth century when the cartographic evidence
suggests that the historic field system was established. The walls comprise three
east-west aligned walls and a single north-south aligned walls. The identified assets
are listed in Table 7 and illustrated in Figure 6.
7.2.4 The survey did not identify any earthworks or structural remains which correspond
with the location of Rural Cottage which is depicted on historic OS maps. Despite this
it is considered that this area is an area of higher archaeological potential due to the
possibility of below ground remains associated with the building. The position of the
cottage is indicated by a blocked gateway in the boundary wall along Dwarriden Lane
(Plate 10).
7.3 Discussion
7.3.1 The woodland survey identified a series of dry-stone walls which correspond with the
field system depicted on historic mapping dating from the mid-nineteenth century.
The survey did not identify any earthworks or structural remains associated with
Rural Cottage, named on the first edition OS, but it is anticipated that there may be
below ground archaeological remains associated with the building located in the
north of the woodland.
20

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Management Recommendations
7.3.2 It is considered that the walls and gateposts are of local significance as they illustrate
the past use and division of the land prior to the establishment of the woodland. It is
recommended that the walls are retained wherever possible during any future
forestry works. It is considered that any possible archaeological remains associated
with Rural Cottage would be of local significance. It is anticipated that any forestry
works in this area of the woodland may require a watching brief if there are likely to
be groundworks associated with the wider forestry works.
21

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 9:
Former field boundary in Dwarriden Lane
Plate 10:
Lane
Blocked gateway to former site of Rural Cottage from Dwarriden
22

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 7:
Identified features in Dwarriden Lane
Feature Description Easting Northing
Significance Conservation
Level
Objective
501 Wall - dry-stone boundary 425696 395329 II II
wall
502 Wall - dry-stone boundary 425694 395398 II II
wall
503 Wall - dry-stone boundary 425747 395480 II II
wall
504 Wall - dry-stone boundary 425686 395506 II II
wall
505 Rural Cottage - building
depicted on 1855 OS
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
425702 395636 II II Undertake watching brief during
groundworks in the vicinity of this
feature if deemed necessary by
SYAS
23

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
8. Eleven Acre Plantation
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 Eleven Acre Plantation is centred on NGR 424069, 392598 and comprises two
compartments within an area of approximately 3.6ha. The woodland is bounded to
the southeast by Mortimer Road, to the southwest by agricultural land and to the
northwest and northeast by moorland. The underlying geology of the site is mapped
as sandstone of the Heyden Rock Formation with no recorded superficial deposits
(British Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the woodland slopes from
approximately 350m aOD in the northwest to approximately 310m aOD in the
southeast.
8.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 7 th December 2017. Survey conditions were
generally moderate apart from a portion in the northwest of the woodland which was
not surveyed due to fallen trees and the density of ground vegetation.
8.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
8.2.1 The SYSMR records the site of a possible Bronze Age cairn (MSY4187)
approximately 300 m south of the woodland. There are no other recorded heritage
assets within the immediate surroundings of the surveyed area.
8.2.2 The woodland parcel is depicted on the first edition OS of 1855 as part of the
Harrison Plantation and is first named as the Eleven Acre Plantation on the 1893 OS
map. The area is depicted as woodland on all editions of the OS.
8.2.3 The woodland survey identified two possible quarrying pits located along the
northeast edge of the area. The identified assets are listed in Table 8 and illustrated
in Figure 7.
8.3 Discussion
8.3.1 The only features recorded during the woodland survey were two possible quarrying
pits (Plate 11). More extensive quarrying activity is depicted on the first edition OS to
the west of the woodland at Thornseat Moor. It is possible that the pits recorded
during the survey relate to this quarrying activity or may represent activity which
required a smaller amount of stone for a specific purpose.
8.3.2 The poor survey conditions in the north of the site restricted movement and visibility
in this portion of the woodland. It is possible that further earthworks were obscured
by wind-felled trees and thick ground vegetation in this area.
Management Recommendations
8.3.3 It is considered that no further action is required prior to any future forestry works in
this woodland.
24

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 11:
Quarrying pit in Eleven Acre Plantation
25

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 8:
Identified features in Eleven Acre Plantation
Feature Description Easting Northing
Significance Conservation
Level
Objective
601 Quarrying Pit 424258 392608 III III
602 Quarrying Pit 424128 392630 III III
Management Recommendations
No further action required
26

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
9. Fairthorn Green
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 Fairthorn Green in centred on NGR 425502, 385122 and comprises a single
compartment with an area of approximately 2.1ha. The woodland is bounded to the
south by Long Causeway, to the east by Redmires Road, to the north by land
associated with Fairthorn Lodge and to the west by previously felled woodland. The
underlying geology is mapped as split between mudstone and siltstone of the
Rossendale Formation and sandstone of the Rough Rock Formation with no
superficial deposits (British Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the
woodland slopes from approximately 380m aOD in the southwest to approximately
360m aOD in the northeast.
9.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 29 th November 2017 and survey conditions were
good.
9.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
9.2.1 The SYSMR records the findspots of a possible Mesolithic flint scraper (MSY10866)
and an undated flint scatter (MSY10811) approximately 150 m southeast of the
woodland. Long Causeway, which runs alongside the southern boundary of the
woodland, is purportedly the route of a Roman road.
9.2.2 The 1854 first edition OS depicts the area as a single field. Adjacent to the eastern
boundary was a farmstead named as Fairthorn Green. By the publication of the 1894
OS map the Redmires Upper Reservoir had been constructed to the east of the
woodland and much of Fairthorn Green had been demolished. Fairthorn Green had
been rebuilt as an L-shaped building to the east of the survey area by the publication
of the 1924 OS map. The area is depicted as woodland on the 1955 OS map and
Fairthorn Green had been demolished by the publication of the 1980 OS map.
9.2.3 The woodland had previously been surveyed (Sidebottom 2002) during which a
section of braided hollow way (Plate 12) was recorded along the southern boundary
of the site. The woodland survey confirmed the findings of this previous survey and
also recorded a section of dry-stone wall and a sunken tank of uncertain function
(Plate 13). The identified assets are listed in Table 9 and illustrated in Figure 8.
9.3 Discussion
9.3.1 The survey confirmed the findings of previous survey work within the woodland. The
section of hollow way is considered to represent former orientations of Long
Causeway prior to its modern orientation. The dry-stone wall corresponds with the
field system depicted on historic OS mapping.
Management Recommendations
9.3.2 It is considered that the wall are of local significance as they illustrate the past use
and division of the land prior to the establishment of the woodland. It is
recommended that the wall is retained wherever possible during any future forestry
works. Additionally, it is also recommended that any future forestry works preserve
the hollow way earthworks in the southeast of the site.
27

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 12:
Hollow way in southeast of Fairthorn Green
Plate 13:
Sunken tank in Fairthorn Green
28

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 9:
Identified features in Fairthorn Green
Significance Conservation
Feature Description Easting Northing
Management Recommendations
Level
Objective
701 Hollow way 425585 385123 II II
Photographic and measured
702 Wall - dry stone boundary 425526 385075 II II
survey prior to forestry works.
wall
703 Wall - dry stone boundary 425447 385061 II II
Retain features within woodland
wall
wherever feasible
704 Unknown - sunken tank 425555 385173 III III No further action required
29

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
10. Lee Lane
10.1 Introduction
10.1.1 Lee Lane is centred on NGR 424965, 395518 and comprises a single compartment
with an area of approximately 2.1ha. The woodland is bounded to the northwest and
southwest by Lee Lane and to the northeast and southeast by further woodland. The
underlying geology is mapped as sandstone of the Guiseley Grit Formation with no
recorded superficial deposits (British Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the
woodland slopes from approximately 255m aOD in the south of the woodland to
approximately 245m aOD in the north.
10.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 4 th January 2018 and survey conditions were good.
10.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
10.2.1 The Grade II Listed Old Booth Farmhouse (NHLE: 1192204) dates from the midseventeenth
century and is located approximately 300m south of the woodland. The
SYSMR records the site of Wigtwizzle Hall (MSY6660) approximately 150m north of
the wodland. Approximately 150m northwest of the woodland are the former
locations of a cruck-framed barn (MSY4520) and farmhouse (MSY4519). Beyond
these locations is the southern boundary of the post-medieval parkland associated
with Broomhead Hall (MSY6757).
10.2.2 The 1855 first edition OS shows the area as a single field. Subsequent editions of the
OS show little change within the site until the publication of the 1955 OS, which
depicts the site as part of a larger woodland.
10.2.3 The woodland survey recorded a single truncated dry-stone wall running along the
southeast boundary of the woodland (Plate 14). No other earthworks or structural
remains were encountered during the survey. The identified assets are listed in
Table 10 and illustrated in Figure 9.
10.3 Discussion
10.3.1 The dry-stone wall identified during the survey corresponds with the field boundary
depicted on the first edition OS and therefore dates from at least the mid-nineteenth
century.
Management Recommendations
10.3.2 It is considered that the wall is of local significance as it illustrates the former division
of the land prior to the establishment of the woodland in the 1950s. It is
recommended, despite previous truncation, that the remaining stretch of wall is
retained wherever possible during any future forestry works.
30

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 14:
Truncated boundary wall in Lee Lane
31

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 10:
Identified features in Lee Lane
Feature Description Easting Northing
801
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Significance
Level
425016 395483 IIB II
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
32

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
11. Lords Seat
11.1 Introduction
11.1.1 Lords Seat is centred on NGR 425146, 385315 and comprises three compartments
with an area of approximately 11ha. The woodland is bounded to the south by a
driveway, to the west, east and north by further woodland and moorland. The
underlying geology of the site is mapped as bands of mudstone and siltstone of the
Rossendale Formation and sandstone of the Rough Rock Formation with no
superficial deposits (British Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the
woodland slopes from approximately 395m aOD in the northwest to approximately
380m aOD in the southeast.
11.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 29 th November 2017 and survey conditions were
good.
11.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
11.2.1 The Scheduled Redmires First World War Training Area (NHLE: 1417488) is located
adjacent to the northern boundary of the woodland. Within the Scheduled area is a
complex of training trenches constructed during the First World War for the training of
recruits. The SYSMR also records the findspot of a cup-marked stone (MSY12960)
dating from the Late Neolithic or Bronze Age to the north of the woodland.
11.2.2 The 1854 first edition OS depicts the area as split between three fields with a
complex of buildings named as Lord’s Seat in the southwest of the area. Little
change is visible until the publication of the 1955 OS map, by which point Lord’s Seat
had been demolished. The woodland was planted during the 1950s.
11.2.3 The woodland had previously been the subject of another survey (Sidebottom 2002).
The woodland survey identified a number of features within the site and confirmed
the results of the previous survey. These included dry stone walls, gateposts and
structural remains associated with Lord’s Seat. The majority of these features were
recorded in the southeast of the site in the vicinity of Lord’s Seat. The buildings
associated with Lord’s Seat have been demolished but are identifiable as mounds of
rubble (Plate 15-16). The potential for below ground archaeological remains is
highlighted by the presence of cellars, one of which has partially collapsed. Two
further openings were identified, through which intact cellars were visible. The
identified assets are listed in Table 11 and illustrated in Figure 10.
11.3 Discussion
11.3.1 The survey identified the remains of Lord’s Seat which was depicted on the first
edition OS and therefore dates to at least the mid-nineteenth century. The buildings
were demolished in the mid-twentieth century but the potential for below ground
archaeological remains to be present is highlighted by the presence of cellars.
11.3.2 The boundary walls defining the nineteenth century field system have largely been
removed from within the site although former gateways between fields are marked by
pairs of gateposts.
Management Recommendations
11.3.3 It is considered that the archaeological remains associated with Lord’s Seat are of at
33

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
least local significance and it is anticipated that further archaeological work may be
needed prior to any forestry works within this area of the site. It is also considered
that the presence of cellars in this area may pose a risk to workers and machinery in
this area.
11.3.4 It is considered that the walls and gateposts are of local significance as they illustrate
the past use and division of the land prior to the establishment of the woodland in the
1950s. It is recommended that the walls are retained wherever possible during any
future forestry works.
34

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 15:
Structural rubble associated with remains of Lords Seat
Plate 16:
View into cellars of Lords Seat
35

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 11:
Identified features in Lords Seat
Feature Description Easting Northing
901
Lord's Seat - building
depicted on 1855 OS
Significance
Level
424909 385129 II II
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
Undertake watching brief during
groundworks in the vicinity of this
feature if deemed necessary by
SYAS
902
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
425331 385302 IIB II
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
36

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
12. Low Ash Common
12.1 Introduction
12.1.1 Low Ash Common is centred on NGR 430023, 391242 and comprises a single
compartment with an area of approximately 2ha. The woodland is bounded to the
north, west and south by agricultural land and to the east by a golf course. The
underlying geology of the site is mapped as mudstone and siltstone of the Lower
Pennines Coal Formation with a band of sandstone of the Loxley Edge Rock
Formation in the north of the site. There are no recorded superficial deposits (British
Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the woodland slopes from
approximately 280m aOD in the north to approximately 240m aOD in the south.
12.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 13 th December 2017 and survey conditions were
good.
12.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
12.2.1 The SYSMR contains no records for any archaeological evidence within the
woodland of its immediate surroundings.
12.2.2 The first edition OS, dating to 1855, shows the area as an irregularly shaped field. By
the publication of the 1894 the site had become woodland. To the south east of the
woodland quarrying activity had begun. By the 1906 OS map, the quarrying activity to
the southeast had expanded and there is some indication that quarrying was taking
place within the survey area. The map depicts a pathway leading to an apparent
working face in the north of the woodland. The 1924 OS map shows the continued
expansion of the quarrying to the south. Quarrying activity had ceased by 1934 and
the golf course had been established to the east by the mid-1950s.
12.2.3 The woodland survey identified extensive evidence for quarrying activity within the
site. The majority of the activity appears to be centred on a working face in the north
of the woodland. Associated with this working face are a complex of other earthworks
which comprise further working faces, quarrying pits and possible trackways (Plates
17). To the east of this principal focus of activity is a series of small-scale extraction
pits. Further features identified during the survey included a probable former mining
air shaft, dry-stone walls and gateposts. The identified assets are listed in Table 12
and illustrated in Figure 11.
12.3 Discussion
12.3.1 The quarrying activity within the woodland is likely to date from the early twentieth
century and is probably associated with the more extensive quarrying activity to the
south and southeast of the survey area which was carried out between the late
nineteenth century and early twentieth century.
12.3.2 Historic mapping indicates a series of other air shafts to the east and northeast of the
woodland and it is considered likely that the air shaft recorded within the area is
associated with this mining activity. The dry stone walls and gateposts recorded
during the woodland survey correspond to the former land boundaries indicated on
historic OS mapping from the mid-nineteenth century.
37

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Management Recommendations
12.3.3 It is considered that the walls and gateposts are of local significance as they illustrate
the past use and division of the land prior to the establishment of the woodland. It is
recommended that the walls are retained wherever possible during any future
forestry works.
12.3.4 The twentieth century quarrying activity within the woodland is considered to be of, at
most, local significance. It is anticipated that no further work would be required prior
to forestry works within the woodland. The quarrying works offer the potential
opportunity for a volunteer led topographic survey to record the full extent of the
earthworks.
38

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 17:
Quarrying activity within Low Ash Common
39

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 12:
Identified features in Low Ash Common
Feature Description Easting Northing
Significance Conservation
Level
Objective
1001 Quarrying activity 429997 391257 II II
Wall - dry stone boundary
1002 wall 429935 391267 II II
1003 Wall 429927 391340 II II
Wall - pair of dry stone
1004 walls 429929 391378 II II
1005 Quarrying Pit 430144 391160 II II
1006 Quarrying Pit 430141 391170 II II
1007 Quarrying Pit 430147 391165 II II
1008 Quarrying Pit 430102 391179 II II
1009 Quarrying Pit 430112 391189 II II
1010 Quarrying Pit 430102 391187 II II
1011 Quarrying Pit 430093 391191 II II
1012 Quarrying Pit 430083 391205 II II
1013 Quarrying Pit 430053 391228 II II
1014 Quarrying Pit 430030 391238 II II
1015 Quarrying Pit 430019 391215 II II
1016 Quarrying Pit 429928 391354 II II
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
1017 Mine Shaft 429945 391276 III III No further action required
40

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
13. More Hall Reservoir
13.1 Introduction
13.1.1 More Hall Reservoir is centred on NGR 427996, 395705 and comprises seven
compartments with an area of approximately 14.3 ha. The woodland is bounded to
the north by More Hall Reservoir, to the west by Jack Lane, to the south by Fairhurst
Lane and to the east by further woodland. The underlying geology is mapped as
mudstone and siltstone of the Marsden Formation with no recorded superficial
deposits (British Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the woodland slopes
from approximately 200 m aOD in the north to approximately 150 m aOD in the
south.
13.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 13 th December 2017 and survey conditions were
moderate.
13.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
13.2.1 The woodland is located close to three Grade II Listed buildings. The barn at Fair
Hurst Farm (NHLE: 1132871) is located approximately 50m south of the woodland
whilst barns at Raynor House (NHLE: 1314572) and Old Thorn House Farm (NHLE:
1132821) are located approximately 250m southwest and to the southeast,
respectively.
13.2.2 The SYSMR records the findspot of an undated retouched flint flake (MSY11145)
within the woodland. Approximately 150m southwest of the woodland is the findspot
of an undated flint core (MSY11146).
13.2.3 The first edition OS, published in 1855, shows the area as split between several
fields. Subsequent editions published in 1894 and 1905 show a gradual
reorganisation of the field boundaries within the site. More Hall Reservoir was
constructed in 1929 and is first depicted on the 1932 OS map. Later editions of the
OS show little change until the woodland was planted in 1969.
13.2.4 The woodland survey recorded a number of features within the site which correspond
with the former field system. These features comprised dry stone walls, former
gateways and banks. The identified assets are listed in Table 13 and illustrated in
Figure 12.
13.2.5 Three former field boundaries were marked by banks. Two of these were located at
the eastern end of the woodland and whilst the third was located in the southern
portion of the survey area. The majority of the extant former field boundary walls
have been slightly truncated but are clearly visible (Plate 18). The survey also
identified a number of heavily truncated walls which typically survive to a length of
between 5 and 10 m. It is probable that these walls were originally longer but the
original exact course and extent of these walls was not discernible during the survey.
One of the gateways lining Fairhurst Lane is situated next to a water trough (Plate
19) which is marked on the first edition OS.
13.3 Discussion
13.3.1 The woodland survey identified features which correspond with the former field
system depicted on historic OS maps and dating from at least the mid-nineteenth
41

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
century. The field system has been truncated since the establishment of the
woodland within the site. A total of four broadly north-south aligned walls and a single
east-west aligned wall survive for much of their original length and height. A series of
other walls were also identified during the survey. These walls also correspond with
the nineteenth century field system but these have been heavily truncated.
Management Recommendations
13.3.2 It is considered that the walls and gateposts are of local significance as they illustrate
the past use and division of the land prior to the establishment of the woodland in the
1950s. It is recommended that the walls are retained wherever possible during any
future forestry works. Similarly, the embankments also mark land boundaries within
the former field system and future work should aim to preserve these earthworks if
possible.
42

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 18:
Former field boundary wall in More Hall Reservoir
Plate 19:
Blocked gateway on Fairhurst Lane with trough
43

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 13:
Identified features in More Hall Reservoir
Feature Description Easting Northing
Significance
Level
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
1101 Structure - brick built 427797 395703 III III No further action required
1102
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall 427772 395862 IIB IIB
1103
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall 427747 395693 IIB IIB
1104
Wall - Dry stone boundary
wall 427791 395693 IIB IIB
1105
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall 427812 395747 II II
Wall - dry stone boundary
1106 wall 427825 395697 II II
Photographic and measured
1107 Bank 427898 395695 II II
survey prior to forestry works.
Wall -dry stone boundary
1108 wall 427885 395728 IIB IIB
Retain features within woodland
Wall - dry stone boundary
wherever feasible
1109 wall 428031 395693 II II
1110
Wall -dry stone boundary
wall 428086 395763 II II
1111
Wall -dry stone boundary
wall 428041 395787 IIB IIB
1112 Bank 428406 395524 IIB IIB
1113 Bank 428536 395549 II II
1114
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall 428556 395512 IIB IIB
44

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
14. Raynor Clough
14.1 Introduction
14.1.1 Raynor Clough is centred on NGR 427620, 395590 and comprises three
compartments with an area of approximately 4.6ha. The woodland is bounded to the
north by Fairhurst Lane, to the east by Bankside, to the west by agricultural land and
to the south by further woodland. The underlying geology is mapped as mudstone
and siltstone of the Marsden Formation with no recorded superficial deposits (British
Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the woodland slopes from
approximately 230m aOD in the southeast to approximately 165m aOD in the
northwest.
14.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 14 th December 2017. Survey conditions were mixed
and were poor in the northwest of the woodland due to the density of ground
vegetation which restricted the movement and visibility in this portion of the site.
14.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
14.2.1 The site is located close to two Grade II Listed buildings. The barn at Raynor House
(NHLE: 1314572) is located approximately 50m to the west whilst the barn at Fair
Hurst Farm (NHLE: 1132871) is located approximately 50m east of the woodland.
14.2.2 The SYSMR records the location of a findspot of an undated flint core (MSY11146)
within the site. Within the vicinity of the woodland the SYSMR records the findspot of
an undated retouched flint flake (MSY11145) approximately 50m to the north. The
SYSMR also records the location of a cruck framed cottage at Fair Hurst Farm
(MSY4536) approximately 50m to the east.
14.2.3 The 1855 first edition OS shows the survey area as split between three parcels of
land with a trackway running from Fairhurst Lane to Raynor House. Subsequent
editions of the OS show little change until the woodland was planted in 1967.
14.2.4 The woodland survey identified three dry stone walls which lined the compartments
within the woodland (Plate 20). The only other identified feature was the route of a
bridleway leading from Fairhurst Lane to Raynor House. The identified assets are
listed in Table 14 and illustrated in Figure 13.
14.3 Discussion
14.3.1 The identified walls correspond with the historic division of the survey area into three
parcels as depicted on historic OS maps. The trackway leading from Fairhurst Lane
to Raynor House is depicted on the first edition OS as a road.
Management Recommendations
14.3.2 It is considered that the walls recorded during the woodland survey are of local
significance as they illustrate the past division of the land prior to the establishment of
the woodland in the 1960s. It is recommended that the walls are retained wherever
possible during any future forestry works.
45

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 20:
Former field boundary wall in Raynor Clough
46

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 14:
Identified features in Raynor Clough
Feature Description Easting Northing
1201
1202
1203
Significance
Level
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
427478
427484
395503
395593
II
II
II
II
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall 427549 395613 II II
1204 Trackway 427632 395568 III III No further action required
47

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
15. Redmires Camp
15.1 Introduction
15.1.1 Redmires Camp is centred on NGR 427861, 385948 and comprises five
compartments with an area of approximately 17.7ha. The woodland is bounded to
the north by Redmires Road, to the east by sports pitches and to the west and south
by agricultural land. The underlying geology is mapped as sandstone of the
Chatsworth Grit Formation with no recorded superficial deposits (British Geological
Survey 2017). The topography of the woodland slopes from approximately 310m
aOD in the southwest to approximately 290m aOD in the northeast.
15.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 5 th December 2017. Survey conditions were mixed
and were poor in the west of the woodland due to the density of ground vegetation
which restricted movement and visibility in this portion of the site.
15.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
15.2.1 The SYSMR records the location of the Redmires Camp (MSY12177) within the
survey area. The area is purported to be the location of Redmires Rasecourse at the
end of the nineteenth century. During the First World War an army camp was
established within the area which by 1917 had become a prisoner of war camp.
Following the end of the First World War the area was purchased by the Sheffield
Education Committee but the planned school was never opened. Instead the site
became an ancillary smallpox hospital to Lodge Moor Hospital which was located to
the eastern end of the survey area. In 1939 a new prisoner of war camp was
constructed to the immediate east of the original camp although it is possible the later
camp expanded into the footprint of the earlier camp during the course of the Second
World War.
15.2.2 Within the immediate vicinity of the woodland the SYSMR also records the location of
three artefact scatters. These comprise two flint scatters (MSY10794, MSY10798)
located approximately 50 m and 100 m north of the site respectively and a modified
quartzite pebble (MSY10827) approximately 200 m to the east.
15.2.3 The first edition of the OS, dated to 1855, depicts the area as split between several
fields. By the publication of the 1893 OS map the area had been amalgamated into a
single large parcel of land. Little change is visible within the site until the publication
of the 1923 OS map where the First World War camp is shown in the west of the site
and labelled as the Redmires Special School following the purchase of the site by the
Sheffield Education Committee in 1920 despite the school never opening. The 1948
OS map depicts the Second World War prisoner of war camp. The woodland was
planted in 1958.
15.2.4 The woodland has previously been the subject of a desk-based assessment and
Level 2 archaeological survey (Gowans and Pouncett 2007). The survey identified a
total of 280 separate features within the woodland, the majority of which comprise the
bases of the structures within the Second World War prisoner of war camp. The area
was visited as part of this woodland survey and the results of the previous survey
confirmed. The location of the camp is listed in Table 15 and illustrated in Figure 14.
48

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
15.3 Discussion
15.3.1 It is considered that the features associated with the Redmires Camp are of at least
regional significance due to their historical and archaeological interest. The historical
interest of the woodland derives from the successive use of the site as a racecourse,
army camp, hospital and prisoner of war camp. The First World War camp also has a
historical association with the Redmires First World War Training Area (Scheduled
Monument; NHLE: 1417488) located to the west of the woodland. The archaeological
interest of the survey area is demonstrated by the structural remains of the buildings
of the Second World War prisoner of war camp (Plate 21-22). The area of woodland
has previously been the subject of a Level 2 archaeological survey which has
recorded 280 individual features within the site (Gowans and Pouncett 2007).
Management Recommendations
15.3.2 It is considered that due to the quantity and significance of the features within the site
that careful consideration is given to preserving the archaeological remains within the
woodland during any future forestry works.
49

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 21:
Structural remains of Redmires prisoner of war camp
Plate 22:
Building footprint with steps up to former entrance
50

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 15:
Identified features in Redmires Camp
Feature Description Easting Northing
1301
Redmires Prisoner of War
Camp
Significance
Level
427861 385948 I I
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
51

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
16. Redmires Reservoir
16.1 Introduction
16.1.1 Redmires Reservoir is centred on NGR 425690, 385622 and comprises two
compartments with an area of approximately 6.1ha. The woodland is bounded to the
east by Redmires Road, to the south by a driveway, to the west by previously felled
woodland and to the north by moorland. The underlying geology of the site is
mapped as mudstone and siltstone of the Rossendale Formation with no recorded
superficial deposits (British Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the
woodland slopes from approximately 370m aOD in the west to approximately 350m
aOD in the east.
16.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 29 th November 2017 and survey conditions were
good.
16.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
16.2.1 The Scheduled Redmires First World War Training Area (NHLE: 1417488) is located
adjacent to the western boundary of the woodland. Within the Scheduled Area is a
complex of training trenches constructed during the First World War for the training of
recruits. The SYSMR records the findspot of a Neolithic spearhead (MSY9504) and a
scatter of flint artefacts (MSY10813) to the east of the woodland.
16.2.2 The first edition OS of 1854 depicts the survey area prior to the establishment of the
Upper Redmires Reservoir. The area is shown as moorland with the Lord’s Seat
quarries to the northwest. By the publication of the 1894 OS map the Upper
Redmires Reservoir had been established to the east of the area. The site of the
woodland had been split into several fields with two residential properties in the
northwestern area. One is unnamed whilst the second, located outside the
boundaries of this survey, was named as ‘Ocean’s View’. Little change is visible
within the area on subsequent additions of the OS until the planting of the woodland
in the 1950s.
16.2.3 The area had previously been the subject of another survey (Sidebottom 2002). The
woodland survey identified a number of features within the survey area and
confirmed the results of the previous survey. These included a former plot of land
which is defined by walls and contains the structural remains of a building (Plate 23)
and a terrace to the north which is possibly a garden feature. The area also contains
a raised platform of uncertain function in the north of the woodland, a boundary wall
and ditch running along the southern boundary and a pair of dry stone walls marking
a footpath (Plate 24) leading to the former Lord’s Seat quarries on the moorland to
the northwest. The identified assets are listed in Table 16 and illustrated in Figure
15.
16.3 Discussion
16.3.1 The identified features within the woodland correspond with those identified during
the previous survey (Sidebottom 2002) and the evidence provided by historic OS
maps. It is considered that the features identified during the survey are likely to date
from the late nineteenth century. There is limited evidence for earlier occupation
within the immediate environs of the woodland.
52

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Management Recommendations
16.3.2 It is considered that the identified features are of local significance as they illustrate
the development of the area during the second half of the nineteenth century and the
past use of the land prior to the establishment of the woodland in the 1950s. It is
recommended that these features are retained wherever possible during any future
forestry works.
53

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 23:
Structural remains (1402) in Redmires Reservoir
Plate 24:
Footpath lined by two former boundary walls
54

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 16:
Identified features in Redmires Reservoir
Feature Description Easting Northing
Significance Conservation
Level
Objective
1401 Platform 425877 385819 II II
1402
Structure - possible
farmstead
425707 385722 II II
1403
Wall - line of former
boundary wall
425712 385742 IIB II
1404 Terrace 425692 385749 II II
1405
trackway - lined with two
dry stone walls
425687 385730 II II
1406
Wall and ditch - land
boundary
425585 385272 II II
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
55

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
17. Rivelin Lodge Plantation
17.1 Introduction
17.1.1 Rivelin Lodge Plantation is centred on NGR 427275, 387047 and comprises two
compartments with an area of approximately 1.1ha. The woodland is bounded to the
north by Manchester Road, to the south by River Rivelin, and to the east and west by
agricultural land and further woodland. The underlying geology is mapped as
mudstone and siltstone of the Marsden Formation with superficial deposits of
boulders (British Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the site slopes from
approximately 220m aOD in the northwest to approximately 210m aOD in the
southeast.
17.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 6 th December 2017 and survey conditions were
good.
17.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
17.2.1 The SYSMR records the location of two flint scatters one of which dates to the
Mesolithic (MSY12673) whilst the other is undated (MSY11195). The findspots are
located approximately 50m west and 150m southwest of the woodland respectively.
17.2.2 The 1854 first edition OS depicts the site as situated between the Sheffield and
Glossop Trust turnpike road and the overspill channel for the Rivelin Reservoirs. A
residence named as Green Head is depicted between the two woodland
compartments and the site itself is depicted as open fields. The 1893 OS shows that
Rivelin Lodge had been constructed to the east of Green Head. The 1923 OS map
shows a small rectangular enclosure to the east of Rivelin Lodge within the northwest
of the eastern portion of the woodland. Little change is visible within the site until the
establishment of the woodland in the 1950s.
17.2.3 The woodland survey identified a raised rectangular platform (Plate 25) with a
retaining wall in the northwest of the eastern portion of the woodland. To the east of
this feature were a series of possible quarrying pits (Plate 26). The only feature
recorded in the western portion of the woodland was the boundary wall which
separates the site from the Rivelin Reservoir overspill channel to the south. The
identified assets are listed in Table 17 and illustrated in Figure 16.
17.3 Discussion
17.3.1 The features identified during the woodland survey largely correspond with the
evidence supplied by historic mapping. Although there is no quarrying activity noted
within the survey area on the OS there are extensive small-scale quarries marked on
the north side of Manchester Road. The small platform in the northwest of the
eastern portion of the woodland corresponds with the enclosure marked on the 1923
OS map.
Management Recommendations
17.3.2 The evidence provided by the SYSMR and historic mapping indicates that there is
limited evidence for archaeological activity within the site or its immediate environs.
The features identified within the woodland are of no more than local significance and
56

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
it is recommended that future forestry work within the woodland should aim to
preserve the features if practicable.
57

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 25:
Raised platform (1501) in Rivelin Lodge Plantation
Plate 26:
Quarrying pit in Rivelin Lodge Plantation
58

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 17:
Identified features in Rivelin Lodge Plantation
Feature Description Easting Northing
1501
1502
Platform - with dry stone
retaining wall
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Significance
Level
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
427353 387043 II II Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
427394 387001 II II
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
1503 Quarrying pit 427375 387025 III III
1504 Quarrying pit 427367 387004 III III
1505 Quarrying pit 427396 387030 III III
1506 Quarrying pit 427398 387038 III III
1507 Quarrying pit 427407 387029 III III
1508 Quarrying pit 427389 387032 III III
1509 Quarrying pit 427409 387012 III III
1510
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
427166 387037 II II
No further action required
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
59

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
18. Rocher End Plantation
18.1 Introduction
18.1.1 Rocher End Plantation is centred on NGR 426383, 392907 and comprises three
compartments with an area of approximately 3ha. The woodland is bounded to the
south by Smallfield Lane, to the east by Rocher End Brook and to the north and west
by agricultural land. The underlying geology is mapped as mudstone and siltstone of
the Marsden Formation with no recorded superficial deposits (British Geological
Survey 2017). The topography of the site slopes from approximately 240m aOD in
the north to approximately 200m aOD in the south.
18.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 11 th December 2017. Survey conditions were mixed
and were poor in the northwest due to the density of ground vegetation. Survey was
not possible in this portion of the woodland.
18.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
18.2.1 Approximately 200m southeast of the woodland is Bailey Hill, a Scheduled motte and
bailey castle (NHLE: 1013217) dating from the twelfth century. The Grade II Listed
Bowsen cruck barn (NHLE: 1286629) is located approximately 175m to the north.
The SYSMR records the location of a post-medieval barn (MSY6327) approximately
50 m southwest of the survey area.
18.2.2 The 1855 first edition OS map shows the area as divided between five fields with a
farmstead, named as Rocher End, located in the north. Subsequent editions of the
OS show little change until the publication of the 1963 OS map by which point the
woodland had been planted. Rocher End is depicted on current OS mapping.
18.2.3 The woodland survey identified the location of the Rocher End farmstead. Although
the buildings are currently ruined the outline is discernible and in some places walls
survive to approximately 3 m in height (Plates 27-28). The remaining features
identified within the woodland were former land boundaries and comprised dry stone
walls, gateposts for former gateways and a bank marking a former field boundary.
The identified assets are listed in Table 18 and illustrated in Figure 17.
18.2.4 It is possible that additional features were present within the northwest of the
woodland but the poor survey conditions restricted visibility and movement in this
section of the survey area.
18.3 Discussion
18.3.1 The identified features within the survey area correspond to the evidence provided by
historic mapping. Rocher End is depicted on the first edition OS and therefore dates
from, at the latest, the mid-nineteenth century. The remaining features within the
woodland provide evidence of the nineteenth century field system associated with
Rocher End.
Management Recommendations
18.3.2 It is considered that the features identified during the woodland survey are of local
significance as they demonstrate the former land use of the site. It is recommended
that the former field boundaries are retained wherever possible during any future
forestry works. It is considered that a programme of archaeological recording of the
60

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Rocher End farmstead may reveal the nature and extent of the standing building
remains in this portion of the woodland.
61

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 27:
Structural remains of Rocher End
Plate 28:
Structural remains of Rocher End
62

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 18:
Identified features in Rocher End Plantation
Feature Description Easting Northing
Significance Conservation
Level
Objective
1601 Rocher End farmstead 426371 392968 II II
1602
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
426404 392953 II II
1603
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
426379 392914 IIB II
1604
Bank - former field
boundary
426346 392901 II II
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
63

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
19. Thompson House Plantation
19.1 Introduction
19.1.1 Thompson House Plantation is centred on NGR 423612, 391737 and comprises two
compartments with an area of approximately 9.2ha. The woodland is bounded to the
northwest by Mortimer Road, to the northeast by Thompson House Green and to the
southeast and southwest by agricultural land. The underlying geology is mapped as
sandstone of the Heyden Rock Formation with no recorded superficial deposits
(British Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the survey area slopes from
approximately 304m aOD in the northwest to approximately 280m aOD in the
southeast.
19.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 7 th December 2017 and survey conditions were
moderate.
19.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
19.2.1 The woodland is located within the vicinity of two Grade II Listed buildings. Hallfield
House (NHLE: 1192122) and an associated barn (NHLE: 1314569) are located
approximately 150m south of the survey area. The SYSMR records no other heritage
assets within the woodland or its immediate surroundings.
19.2.2 The first edition OS map of 1855 depicts the area as split between seven fields with a
farmstead named as Lane Head situated adjacent to the western boundary of the
site. Little change is visible within the landscape until the publication of the 1963 OS
map when the woodland had been planted.
19.2.3 The woodland survey recorded a number of features mainly comprising dry stone
walls and former gateways (Plate 29). The survey also identified a small brick
structure of uncertain function but most likely to be agricultural in nature (Plate 30).
The identified assets are listed in Table 19 and illustrated in Figure 18.
19.3 Discussion
19.3.1 The features recorded during the woodland survey correspond with the field system
depicted on historic OS maps. Some of the field boundaries, particularly in the
eastern portion of the woodland are slightly curved and this may suggest that they
are part of a medieval or early post-medieval field system. There is currently no
archaeological evidence for human activity predating the post-medieval period within
the area or its immediate environs.
Management Recommendations
19.3.2 It is considered that the walls and gateways identified during the woodland survey
are of local significance as they illustrate the agricultural history of the area prior to
the establishment of the woodland. It is recommended that the walls marking former
field boundaries are retained wherever possible during any future forestry works.
64

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 29:
Former field boundary wall in Thompson House Plantation
Plate 30: Small brick structure (1707)
65

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 19:
Identified features in Thompson House Plantation
Feature Description Easting Northing
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Structure - brick structure
of unknown function
Significance
Level
423661 391870 II II
423712 391796 II II
423567 391810 II II
423627 391752 II II
423599 391785 II II
423518 391717 IIB II
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
423505 391729 III III No further action required
66

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
20. White Lee Moor
20.1 Introduction
20.1.1 White Lee Moor is centred on NGR 426328, 394479 and comprises eleven
compartments with an area of approximately 40.6ha. The woodland is bounded to
the south by Penistone Road and to the east, west and north by agricultural land.
The underlying geology of the site is mapped as sandstone of the Huddersfield White
Rock Formation with no recorded superficial deposits (British Geological Survey
2017). The topography of the woodland slopes from a peak in the southern portion of
the survey area of approximately 380m aOD to a minimum of approximately 340m
aOD in the northeast.
20.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 11 th December 2017. Survey conditions were mixed
and were poor in the northwest of the woodland due to topography and the density of
ground vegetation. These conditions restricted movement and visibility in this portion
of the site.
20.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
20.2.1 The woodland is located adjacent to a Grade II Listed guide pillar (NHLE: 1192353)
which is located on the north side of Penistone Road. The SYSMR records the
findspot of a scatter of flint artefacts of possible Mesolithic date (MSY9373) within the
site. Additionally, the SYSMR also records the findspot of a scatter of Mesolithic flint
artefacts (MSY9372) to the immediate south of the site.
20.2.2 The survey area is depicted as moorland on the 1855 first edition OS map with a
disused sandstone quarry in the south of the area. The 1894 OS map shows the
encroachment of agricultural fields to the current boundaries of the survey area whilst
itself remained open moorland. A second quarry had been excavated in the northeast
corner of the area but had become disused. Subsequent editions of the OS show
little change within the area prior to the planting of the woodland in 1961.
20.2.3 The woodland survey recorded the Grade II Listed milestone (Plate 31) to the south
of the woodland which is located immediately adjacent to a former gateway into the
site marked by two gateposts. The survey also identified a series of quarrying pits
and possible quarrying pits (Plate 32). These were largely concentrated along the
eastern and western boundaries of the woodland. The identified assets are listed in
Table 20 and illustrated in Figure 18.
20.3 Discussion
20.3.1 The evidence provided by historic mapping indicates that the survey area was
moorland prior to the establishment of the woodland during the mid-twentieth
century. The woodland survey identified a number of quarrying pits and possible
quarrying pits. The historic OS maps indicate two areas of former quarrying on the
1855 and 1894 OS maps and it is possible that additional small-scale quarrying was
not mapped. There is limited evidence for prehistoric activity within the woodland and
its immediate surroundings in the form of findspots of flint artefact scatters.
Management Recommendations
20.3.2 The recorded quarrying activity within the site is likely to date from the post-medieval
67

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
period and it is considered that these features are of limited significance. It is
therefore considered that no additional measures are needed prior to or during any
future forestry works within the site.
20.3.3 The Handsome Cross guide pillar is of national significance as recognised by its
Grade II Listing. The guide pillar is located on Penistone Road in close proximity to
the main vehicular access to the woodland. It is considered unlikely that the guide
pillar will be affected by future works but that care should be taken that it is not
damaged by vehicles accessing the site.
68

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 31: Grade II Listed guide pillar (NHLE: 1192353)
Plate 32:
Quarrying pit in White Lee Moor
69

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 20:
Identified features in White Lee Moor
Feature Description Easting Northing
Significance
Level
1801 Milepost 426015 394120 I I
1802 Quarrying pit 426766 394670 III III
1803 Quarrying pit 426727 394552 III III
1804 Quarrying pit 426722 394514 III III
1805 Quarrying pit 426238 394310 III III
1806 Quarrying pit 425967 394662 III III
1807 Quarrying pit 426010 394444 III III
1808 Quarrying pit 426013 394477 III III
1809 Quarrying pit 426023 394217 III III
1810 Quarrying pit 426032 394255 III III
1811 Quarrying pit 425959 394211 III III
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
Grade II Listed guide pillar
Unlikely to be affected by future
forestry works
No further action required
70

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
21. Wigtwizzle
21.1 Introduction
21.1.1 Wigtwizzle is centred on NGR 424668, 395465 and comprises a single compartment
with an area of approximately 6.6ha. The woodland is bounded to the northwest by
Moor Lane, to the northeast by Lee Lane, to the southeast by Lee Lane Dike and to
the southwest by agricultural land. The underlying geology of the site is mapped as
sandstone of the Heyden Rock Formation with no recorded superficial deposits
(British Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the woodland slopes from
approximately 290m aOD in the southwest to approximately 250m aOD in the
northeast.
21.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 5 th January 2018 and survey conditions were good.
21.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
21.2.1 The woodland is located 200m north of the Grade II Listed Booth Farmhouse (NHLE:
119204). The SYSMR records that the survey area is in close proximity to several
post-medieval heritage assets relating to Wigtwizzle and Broomhead Hall. This
includes the post-medieval park boundary for Broomhead Hall (MSY6757) which is
located approximately 50 m north of the site. The SYSMR also records the site of
Wigtwizzle Hall (MSY6660), and two cruck-framed buildings (MSY4519, MSY4520)
within the small settlement of Wigtwizzle located approximately 50m east of the
woodland.
21.2.2 The 1855 first edition OS shows the area as split between four fields and by the
publication of the 1894 OS map there had been a slight reorganisation of the field
boundaries in the northeast of the survey area. The 1905 OS map shows that a small
building had been constructed in the northeast corner. Subsequent editions of the OS
show little change until the woodland was planted in the 1950s. The small building in
the northeast of the woodland was last depicted on the 1963 OS map.
21.2.3 The woodland survey identified a number of features within the site. These
comprised a series of dry stone walls and gateposts (Plate 33). The identified assets
are listed in Table 21 and illustrated in Figure 20.
21.3 Discussion
21.3.1 The features identified within the woodland correspond with the historic OS
depictions of the area and correspond with the former field boundaries which date
back to at least the mid-nineteenth century. There was no trace of the small building
which was formerly positioned in the northeast of the survey area. The survey area is
located in close proximity to the small settlement of Wigtwizzle and is likely to have
formed part of the agricultural land associated with the settlement since at least the
post-medieval period. There is currently no evidence for earlier activity within the
woodland or its immediate environs.
Management Recommendations
21.3.2 It is considered that former field boundaries and gateposts within the woodland are of
local significance as they illustrate the former divisions of land within the area. It is
recommended that wherever possible these features are retained during any future
71

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
forestry works within the woodland.
Plate 33:
Truncated former field boundary wall in Wigtwizzle
72

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 21:
Identified features in Wigtwizzle
Feature Description Easting Northing
1901
1902
1903
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Significance
Level
424706 395473 II II
424671 395525 IIB II
424713 395403 II II
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
73

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
22. Wigtwizzle Hall
22.1 Introduction
22.1.1 Wigtwizzle Hall is centred on NGR 425181, 395802 and comprises three
compartments with an area of approximately 9.7ha. The woodland is bounded to the
north by Allas Lane, to the west by Lee Lane, to the south by Lee Lane Dike and to
the east by Allas Dike Lane. The underlying geology is mapped as mudstone and
siltstone of the Mardsen Formation in the east and sandstone of the Guiseley Grit
Formation in the west. There are no recorded superficial deposits (British Geological
Survey 2017). The topography of the woodland slopes from approximately 240m
aOD in the west to approximately 180m aOD in the east.
22.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 4 th January 2018 and survey conditions were good
to moderate.
22.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
22.2.1 The SYSMR records the site of Wigtwizzle Hall (MSY6660) within the west of the
site. Approximately 50 m west of the site are the former locations of two cruck-framed
buildings (MSY4519, MSY4520). To the north of the woodland is the post-medieval
boundary to the parkland associated with Broomhead Hall (MSY6757).
22.2.2 The first edition of the OS, published in 1855, shows the area as being split between
six fields with Wigtwizzle Hall located in the northwest corner of the survey area.
Little change is visible within the area on subsequent editions of the OS until the
woodland was planted in 1954. The 1955 OS map shows the site as woodland and
the farmstead is no longer depicted.
22.2.3 The woodland survey identified a number of features. These included possible
building platforms and building rubble which is likely to be associated with the
demolished post-medieval Wigtwizzle Hall (Plate 34). To the east of these features
were a series of walls and a possible demolished building which is likely to have
been associated with Wigtwizzle Hall. The boundary wall which defines the modern
woodland contains several pairs of gateposts which illustrate the former access
points to the hall and its ancillary buildings (Plate 35).
22.2.4 The survey also identified a series of drystone walls and gateposts within the east of
the woodland (Plate 36). These features are agricultural in origin and represent the
former field boundaries for the historic field system which was present within the area
prior to the establishment of the woodland. The identified assets are listed in Table
22 and illustrated in Figure 21.
22.3 Discussion
22.3.1 The survey identified earthworks which are likely to represent the archaeological
remains of Wigtwizzle Hall and its associated ancillary buildings within the west of the
survey area. The first reference to the hall dates to the seventeenth century and it
was finally demolished during the mid-twentieth century. It is considered that any
potential archaeological remains associated with Wigtwizzle Hall may be of up to
regional significance due to their archaeological and historical interests.
22.3.2 The remaining features identified during the woodland survey are the remains of dry
74

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
stone walls which marked the boundaries of the fields within the field system that is
depicted on OS maps from the mid-nineteenth century onwards. The recorded walls
correlate to the boundaries depicted on the historic OS maps.
Management Recommendations
22.3.3 It is considered that care should be taken during any future forestry works in the
immediate vicinity of the site of Wigtwizzle Hall due to the archaeological potential of
the area. It is possible that future research projects could be undertaken to determine
the nature, extent and significance of the archaeological remains in this area.
22.3.4 It is considered that the remaining features within the woodland are of local
significance as they demonstrate the former post-medieval field system which was
present within the site until the establishment of the woodland. It is recommended
that the walls should be retained as far as is practicable during any future forestry
works.
75

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 34:
Site of Wigtwizzle Hall
Plate 35:
Former gateway to Wigtwizzle Hall
76

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 36:
Former field boundary wall in Wigtwizzle Hall
77

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 22:
Identified features in Wigtwizzle Hall
Feature Description Easting Northing
Significance
Level
2001 Wigtwizzle Hall 424880 395756 I I
2002 Structure - house 424922 395753 II II
2003
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
424905 395736 IIB II
2004
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
424942 395738 IIB II
2005
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
425014 395762 II II
2006
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
425119 395741 II II
2007
Structure - two roomed
cottage
425083 395801 II II
2008
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
425172 395820 II II
2009
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
425235 395847 II II
2010
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
425383 395798 IIB II
2011
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
425347 395857 IIB II
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
Archaeological mitigation may be
required prior to forestry works in
this area
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
78

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
23. Windy Bank
23.1 Introduction
23.1.1 Windy Bank is centred on NGR 425704, 392379 and comprises a single
compartment with an area of approximately 5ha. The woodland is bounded to the
north and east by Windy Bank and to the south and west by agricultural land. The
underlying geology is mapped as sandstone of the Huddersfield White Rock
Formation with a band of mudstone and siltstone of the Marsden Formation. There
are no recorded superficial deposits (British Geological Survey 2017). The
topography of the woodland slopes from approximately 220m aOD in the west to
approximately 200m aOD in the east.
23.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 8 th December 2017, Survey conditions were largely
moderate apart from the northwest portion of the woodland which was poor due to
the density of ground vegetation. These conditions restricted movement and visibility
in this portion of the woodland.
23.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
23.2.1 There are no designated or undesignated heritage assets within the site or its
immediate environs.
23.2.2 The 1855 first edition of the OS depict the site as split between eight fields and
bound to the south by Set Lane. The 1893 OS map depicts an embankment along
the western boundary of the site. This embankment is depicted on subsequent
editions of the OS and little further change is visible within the area until the
woodland was planted in 1947.
23.2.3 The woodland survey only identified a single north-south aligned bank within the site.
It is likely that this bank represents a former field boundary (Plate 37). The survey
also recorded a series of former gateways which provided access into the area. The
identified assets are listed in Table 23 and illustrated in Figure 22.
23.2.4 It is possible that additional unidentified features are present within the northwest of
the site but were unrecorded due to the poor survey conditions in this section of the
woodland.
23.3 Discussion
23.3.1 The bank identified within the southwest of the woodland corresponds with a former
field boundary depicted on historic OS maps. No other assets were recorded within
the survey area.
Management Recommendations
23.3.2 It is recommended that the bank is retained wherever possible during any future
forestry works within the woodland.
79

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 37:
Bank (2101) in Windy Bank
80

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 23:
Identified features in Windy Bank
Feature Description Easting Northing
Significance
Level
2101 Bank 425650 392329 II II
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
81

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
24. Windy Bank Wood
24.1 Introduction
24.1.1 Windy Bank Wood is centred on NGR 425230, 392764 and comprises two
compartments with an area of approximately 2.7ha. The woodland is bounded to the
south by Windy Bank, to the north by Agden Reservoir and to the east and west by
further woodland. The underlying geology of the site is mapped as sandstone of the
Huddersfield White Rock Formation in the south and east of the site and mudstone
and siltstone of the Marsden Formation in the north and west. There are no recorded
superficial deposits (British Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the
woodland slopes from approximately 260m aOD in the south to approximately 220m
aOD in the north.
24.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 8 th December 2017 and survey conditions were
good.
24.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
24.2.1 There are no designated or undesignated heritage assets within the site or its
immediate environs.
24.2.2 The first edition OS of 1855 shows the site as partially wooded with a trackway
leading to Agden House running through the northern portion of the site. Little
change is visible within the site until the publication of the 1955 OS map by which
time the woodland had been planted within the site.
24.2.3 The woodland survey identified a single north-south aligned dry stone wall which
marks a former field boundary (Plate 38). The wall has been slightly truncated along
some of its length and contains a gateway at its northern end. The path that runs
along the northern boundary of the eastern parcel of the woodland is a former
driveway to Agden House which was situated to the northwest of the area. The
gateposts (Plate 39) at the eastern end of the woodland are more decorative than
most examples recorded during the woodland surveys and demonstrate the status of
the post-medieval house. The identified assets are listed in Table 24 and illustrated
in Figure 23.
24.3 Discussion
24.3.1 The features identified during the woodland survey correspond with a field boundary
and driveway depicted on historic OS maps. It is considered that these features are
of local significance as they demonstrate the former land use of the site prior to the
establishment of the woodland.
Management Recommendations
24.3.2 It is recommended that the wall and trackway are maintained wherever possible
during any future forestry works within the woodland.
82

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 38:
Former field boundary wall in Windy Bank Wood
Plate 39:
Gatepost for gateway to Former Agden House
83

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 24:
Identified features in Windy Bank Wood
Feature Description Easting Northing
2201
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
Significance
Level
425180 392801 II II
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
84

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
25. Wragg House Plantation
25.1 Introduction
25.1.1 Wragg House Plantation is centred on NGR 424307, 391259 and comprises a single
compartment with an area of approximately 17.4 ha. The woodland is bounded to the
southeast by Blindside Lane, to the northwest by Dale Dike Reservoir and to the
southwest and northeast by agricultural land. The underlying geology of the site is
mapped as mudstone, siltstone and sandstone of the Marsden Formation with no
recorded superficial deposits (British Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the
woodland slopes from approximately 240 m aOD in the south to approximately 220 m
aOD in the north.
25.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 6 th December 2017 and survey conditions were
moderate.
25.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
25.2.1 The Grade II Listed Byewash Bridge at Dale Dike Reservoir (NHLE: 1191667) is
located 50 m north of the site. The SYSMR records two areas of post-medieval
quarrying (MSY12463, MSY12464) situated on either side of Blindside Lane to the
south of the site.
25.2.2 The first edition OS of 1855 depicts the woodland as split between several fields. At
the southern end of the land parcel a collection of buildings named as Wragg House
are depicted whilst in the central portion of the woodland is another collection of
buildings named ‘Yew Trees’. Running from Blindside Lane northwards through the
area were two roads named as Roger Lane and Cob Lane. Both of these roads are
shown as running into Dale Dike Reservoir, to the north of the woodland, and it is
presumed that prior to the establishment of the reservoir these roads continued
northwards.
25.2.3 By the publication of the 1893 OS map a buffer zone around the reservoir had been
established which had resulted in the field system within the site being truncated to
the north. Yew Trees had been renamed as The Yews by the publication of this map.
The 1905 OS map shows that Cob Lane had been incorporated into the field system.
Little change is evident within the area on subsequent editions of the OS until the
publication of the 1955 OS map when the woodland had been planted and The Yews
was no longer depicted.
25.2.4 The woodland survey identified a series of dry-stone walls and gateposts which mark
the former field boundaries within the site (Plate 40). The site also identified a series
of structural remains which are likely to relate to The Yews. To the east of these
remains was the structural remains of a small agricultural building which was formerly
situated in the southwest corner of a field. The building contained a mid-twentieth
century piece of agricultural equipment, possibly a pitch-pole cultivator (Plate 41).
The survey also identified a trackway running north-south through the area from
Blindside Lane towards Dale Dike Reservoir. The trackway was lined by two drystone
walls (Plate 42). The identified assets are listed in Table 25 and illustrated in
Figure 24.
85

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
25.3 Discussion
25.3.1 The features identified during the woodland survey correlate with the evidence
provided by historic mapping. The trackway running through the site is the former
Roger Lane and is preserved as a footpath. The dry stone walls and gateways also
correspond with the field system depicted on maps from the mid-nineteenth century
onwards which has also been preserved within the established woodland.
25.3.2 The survey also identified structural remains associated with The Yews as named on
historic OS maps. The remains have been truncated by previous forestry works
although there are some standing remains. The Yews is depicted on the first edition
OS and therefore dates from at least the mid-nineteenth century. To the east of these
remains were the structural remains of another building. This is likely to be an
associated agricultural building located in the corner of a field.
Management Recommendations
25.3.3 It is considered that all the identified features are of local significance as they
demonstrate the former agricultural use of the site and the previous land divisions
within the post-medieval field system. It is recommended that these features are
retained wherever possible during any future forestry works within the woodland.
86

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 40:
Former field boundary wall in Wragg House Plantation
Plate 41:
Agricultural equipment within Wragg House Plantation
87

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 42:
Roger Lane in Wragg House Plantation
88

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Table 25:
Identified features in Wragg House Plantation
Feature Description Easting Northing
Significance
Level
2301
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
424032 391074 II II
2302
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
424067 391159 II II
2303
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
424148 391186 II II
2304 Road – Roger Lane 424235 391282 II II
2305
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
424319 391323 II II
2306
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
424320 391405 II II
2307
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
424291 391408 II II
2308
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
424490 391462 II II
2309
Wall - dry stone boundary
wall
424547 391526 II II
2310 The Yews 424336 391298 II II
2311 Structure 424355 391331 IIB II
Conservation
Objective
Management Recommendations
Photographic and measured
survey prior to forestry works.
Retain features within woodland
wherever feasible
89

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
26. Yew Trees Lane
26.1 Introduction
26.1.1 Yew Trees Lane is centred on NGR 425879, 396367 and comprises a single
compartment with an area of approximately 4.1ha. The woodland is bounded
to the south by Yew Trees Lane, to the east by Wood Brook, and to the north
and west by agricultural land. The underlying geology of the site is mapped as
mudstone and siltstone of the Marsden Formation with a band of sandstone
of the Guiseley Formation. There are no recorded superficial deposits (British
Geological Survey 2017). The topography of the woodland slopes from
approximately 220m aOD in the north to approximately 195m aOD in the
south.
26.1.2 The woodland was surveyed on 3 rd January 2018 and survey conditions were
poor. The woodland was near the end of the process of being clear felled,
and much of the ground was covered with felled logs and branches (Plate
43).
26.2 Archaeological and Historical Background
26.2.1 The SYSMR record the findspot of a scatter of Romano-British and medieval
pottery (MSY10876) approximately 180 m southwest of the site.
Approximately 170 m south of the site is the location of a possible Romano-
British smelting site (MSY5931). To the north of the site is a section of postmedieval
terraced trackway (MSY12444) recorded during a previous study
(Ullathorne 2005).
26.2.2 The first edition of the OS, published in 1855, depicts the woodland as split
between two fields with a ruined building to the south and Wood Farm to the
southeast of the site. The ruined building was not depicted on the 1894 OS
map and Wood Farm was not depicted on the 1955 OS map. Little change is
depicted within the site until the planting of the woodland in 1953.
26.2.3 The site was in the process of being clear felled during the woodland survey
and survey conditions were therefore poor due to the ground cover of stripped
branches and felled logs. No archaeological features were identified during
the survey.
26.3 Discussion
26.3.1 The survey did not identify any archaeological features within the woodland
and the cartographic evidence suggests that the site had been agricultural
land from at least the mid-nineteenth century. The SYSMR records a possible
Romano-British site to the south of the woodland and an area of postmedieval
trackway to the north but it is considered that there is a low potential
for archaeological remains to be present within the area.
Management Recommendations
26.3.2 From the evidence provided by the woodland survey, historic mapping and
the SYSMR it is considered that there are no features within the woodland
which need to be managed during future forestry works.
90

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
91

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Plate 43:
Survey conditions in Yew Trees Lane at time of survey
92

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
27. Conclusion
27.1 Discussion
27.1.1 The woodland surveys identified a total of 133 individual or groups of features
within the 24 woodland parcels. Only a single site, Yew Trees Lane, was
found to not contain any identifiable archaeological features. The majority of
the sites have previously been used as agricultural land and consequently the
vast majority of the identified features can be attributed to former land
boundaries within the post-medieval field systems prior to the establishment
of the woodlands during the mid-twentieth century. It is recommended that
any future forestry works attempt to preserve these features wherever it is
feasible.
27.1.2 The surveys did identify a number of heritage assets of at least regional
significance. Alongside the southern boundary of White Lee Moor is a Grade
II Listed guide pillar (NHLE: 1192353) and although this designated heritage
asset is unlikely to be impacted by affected by any future forestry works it is
considered that care must be taken to ensure that this feature is not
damaged.
27.1.3 Other sites of regional significance include the structural remains of the World
War Two Redmires prisoner of war camp within Redmires Camp, the sites of
post-medieval houses including Wigtwizzle Hall, Lords Seat and Rocher End.
These sites are all located within their individual woodlands and careful
management is required to ensure these assets are not significantly affected
by any future forestry works.
93

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
28. References
British Geological Survey 2017. Geology of Britain Viewer. Available at
http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html (accessed
18/12/2017)
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA). 2014. Standard and guidance
for an archaeological watching brief.
Govans E. and Pouncett, J. 2007. Redmires Camp Plantation, Sheffield:
Desk-based assessment and Level 2 Archaeological Survey. ASE Ltd.
Historic England 2017. Conservation Principles. London
Historic England. 2017. Understanding the Archaeology of Landscapes (2nd
edition) Swindon: Historic England.
Keen, L. and Carreck, A. 1987 Historic Landscape of the Weld Estate,
Dorset East Lulworth: Lulworth Heritage
Sidebottom, P. 2002. An archaeological desktop assessment of woodland at
Redmires, South Yorkshire. Phil Sidebottom Archaeological Consultancy
Ullathorne, A. 2005. Broomhead Estate and White House Farm, Bradfield,
Stocksbridge and Charlesworth. Cultural Heritage Team Peak District
National Park Authority
94

Sheffield Lakelands –
Archaeological Woodland Surveys
Figures
95

Broom headPark
Yew Trees Lane
±
Wigtw iz z leHall
MoreHall Reservoir
Wigtw iz z le
LeeLane
Dw arriden Lane
Dw arriden
Raynor Clough
WhiteLeeMoor
Agden HouseWood
Eleven AcrePlantation
Windy BankWood
Rocher EndPlantation
Thom pson HousePlantation
WraggHousePlantation
Windy Bank
DoeHouseWood
Low AshCom m on
S ite
Contains OS data©Crow n
Copyrightanddatabaseright
2017
S hefieldLakelandS tudy Area
Rivelin LodgePlantation
Kilom eters
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Redm ires Reservoir
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Lords S eat
Redm ires Cam p
S hefieldLakelands –
Archaeological WoodlandS urveys
Fairthorn Green
Figure 1: Site locations
Contains OS data©Crow n Copyrightanddatabaseright2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
©Crow n copyright,All rights reserved.2018Licencenum ber 100018619
Date:January 2018
S cale: 1:50,000 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/1

±
Site
Featu res
Gatepost
101
103
103
102
Meters
0 50 100 150
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Shefield Lakeland s–
ArchaeologicalWood land Su rveys
Figure 2: Agden House Wood
ContainsOSd ata© Crow nCopyright and d atabaseright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow ncopyright,Alrightsreserved .2018Licencenu mber 100018619 Date:Janu ary 2018 Scale: 1:2,000 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/2

±
Site
Featu res
Gatepost
203
201
202
Meters
0 50 100 150
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Shefield Lakeland s–
ArchaeologicalWood land Su rveys
Figure 3: Broomhead Wood
ContainsOSd ata© Crow nCopyright and d atabaseright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow ncopyright,Alrightsreserved .2018Licencenu mber 100018619 Date:Janu ary 2018 Scale: 1:2,000 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/3

±
Site
Features
303
Gatep os t
302
Meters
301
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 4: Doe House Wood
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:1,250 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/4

±
Site
Features
407
Gatep os t
406
409
405
402
404
403
404
408
401
401
401
Meters
0 50 100 150 200
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 5: Dwarriden
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:2,500 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/5

±
505
Site
Features
Gatep os t
503
504 504
502
501
Meters
0 50 100 150
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 6: Dwarriden Lane
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:2,000 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/6

±
Site
Featu res
Gatepost
602
601
Meters
0 50 100 150
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Shefield Lakeland s–
ArchaeologicalWood land Su rveys
Figure 7: Eleven Acre Plantation
ContainsOSd ata© Crow nCopyright and d atabaseright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow ncopyright,Alrightsreserved .2018Licencenu mber 100018619 Date:Janu ary 2018 Scale: 1:2,000 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/7

±
Site
Features
Gatep os t
704
701
703
702
Meters
0 10 20 30 40 50
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 8: Fairthorn Green
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:1,000 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/8

±
Site
Features
Gatep os t
801
Meters
0 10 20 30 40 50
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 9: Lee Lane
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:1,000 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/9

±
Site
Featu res
Gatepost
902
901
901
Meters
901
901
901
0 50 100 150 200
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Shefield Lakeland s–
ArchaeologicalWood land Su rveys
Figure 10: Lords Seat
ContainsOSd ata© Crow nCopyright and d atabaseright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow ncopyright,Alrightsreserved .2018Licencenu mber 100018619 Date:Janu ary 2018 Scale: 1:2,500 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/10

1002
±
1004
Site
1016
Features
Gatep os t
1003
1017
1001
1014
1013
1015
1012
1011
1010
1009
1002
1008
1006
1007
1005
Meters
0 20 40 60 80 100
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 11: Low Ash Common
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:1,250 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/11

±
Site
Features
Gatep os t
1102
1111
1110
1103
1101
1104
1105
1106
1108
1107
1109
1109
1113
1112
1114
Meters
0 50 100 150 200 250
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 12: More Hall Reservoir
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:4,000 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/12

±
Site
Features
Gatep os t
1202
1203
1202
1204
1201
Meters
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 13: Raynor Clough
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:1,500 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/13

±
Site
Features
Gatep os t
1301
Meters
0 50 100 150 200
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 14: Redmires Camp
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:2,500 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/14

±
1401
Site
Features
1404
1403
Gatep os t
1402
1405
Meters
0 50 100 150 200
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
1406
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Figure 15: Redmires Reservoir
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:2,500 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/15

±
Site
Features
Gatep os t
1510
1501
1503
1506
1508
1505 1507
1509
1504
1502
Meters
0 10 20 30 40 50
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 16: Rivelin Lodge Plantation
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:1,000 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/16

1604
±
Site
Features
Gatep os t
1601
1602
1603
Meters
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 17: Rocher End Plantation
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:1,500 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/17

1705
±
Site
Features
Gatep os t
1701
1703
1702
1704
1707
1706
Meters
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 18: Thompson House Plantation
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:2,000 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/18

±
Site
1806
1802
Features
Gatep os t
1803
1804
1808
1807
1805
1810
1811
1809
Meters
0 50 100 150 200 250
1801
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 19: White Lee Moor
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:3,000 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/19

±
Site
Featu res
Gatepost
1902
1901
1903
Meters
0 50 100 150
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Shefield Lakeland s–
ArchaeologicalWood land Su rveys
Figure 20: Wigtwizzle
ContainsOSd ata© Crow nCopyright and d atabaseright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow ncopyright,Alrightsreserved .2018Licencenu mber 100018619 Date:Janu ary 2018 Scale: 1:2,000 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/20

±
Site
Features
Gatep os t
2011
2009
2008
2007
2010
2001 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Meters
0 50 100 150 200
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 21: Wigtwizzle Hall
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:2,500 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/21

±
Site
Featu res
Gatepost
2101
Meters
0 50 100 150
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Shefield Lakeland s–
ArchaeologicalWood land Su rveys
Figure 22: Windy Bank
ContainsOSd ata© Crow nCopyright and d atabaseright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow ncopyright,Alrightsreserved .2018Licencenu mber 100018619 Date:Janu ary 2018 Scale: 1:2,000 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/22

±
Site
Featu res
Gatepost
2201
Meters
0 50 100 150
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Shefield Lakeland s–
ArchaeologicalWood land Su rveys
Figure 23: Windy Bank Wood
ContainsOSd ata© Crow nCopyright and d atabaseright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow ncopyright,Alrightsreserved .2018Licencenu mber 100018619 Date:Janu ary 2018 Scale: 1:2,500 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/23

±
2309
Site
Features
Gatep os t
2308
2307
2306
2305
2311
2310
2304
2303
2302
Meters
0 50 100 150 200
2301
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
ShefieldLakelands –
Arc haeologic alWoodlandSurveys
Figure 24: Wragg House Plantation
Contains OSdata© Crow nCop yright anddatabas eright 2017
Brook Holt 3 Blackburn Road Sheffield S61 2DW
T: 0114 2669292 www.ecusltd.co.uk
© Crow nc op yright,Alrights res erved.2018Lic enc enumber100018619 Date:January 2018 Sc ale: 1:2,500 @A3 Drg.Ref:AKC/10793/24

Historic England
Listed buildings and structures Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Area
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/ April 2018
Around Langsett
Name: BARN AT LANGSETT HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191611
Name: LANGSETT HOUSE (SOUTH PART)
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1315060
Name: HOUSE IMMEDIATELY EAST OF LANGSETT HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1151082
Name: BARN APPROXIMATELY 5 METRES NORTH OF THE LODGE (Y.W.A.)
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191559
Name: WAGON AND HORSES PUBLIC HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1151081
Upper Midhope
Name: TOWN HEAD COTTAGES
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132826
Name: MANOR FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192641
Name: SYCAMORE COTTAGE WELLBANK COTTAGE WELLBANK FARMHOUSE WELLBANK
FARMHOUSE INCLUDING NUMBER 1 WELLBANK COTTAGE AND SYCAMORE COTTAGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192651

Name: BARN AT WELL BANK FARM
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132831
A616
Name: MILESTONE, OPPOSITE TRACK TO ALDERMAN'S HEAD COTE FARM
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191551
Midhopestones
Name: LOWER HAND BANK FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191539
Name: TOLL BAR COTTAGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1233964
Name: MILESTONE APPROXIMATELY 5 METRES EAST OF JUNCTION WITH MORTIMER ROAD
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1315059
Name: MIDHOPESTONES BRIDGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192150
Name: BARN, COWHOUSE AND FORGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192100
Name: SMALL HOUSE TO SOUTH WEST OF BARN
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132845
Name: CLUB INN
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132847
Name: CHURCH OF ST JAMES
Designation Type: Listing

Grade: II*
List UID: 1132872
Name: COWHOUSE ADJOINING NORTH WEST CORNER OF MIDHOPE HALL FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132844
Name: STONECROFT COTTAGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286765
Name: NEW HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286738
Name: SMITHY AT JUNCTION WITH OAKS LANE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132848
Name: THE OAKS FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132853
Name: BARN AND COWHOUSE ON EAST SIDE OF FARMYARD AT THE OAKS FARM
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286669
Around Underbank
Name: BARN AT WINDHILL FARM APPROXIMATELY 30 METRES TO SOUTH OF FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1193158
Name: CRUCK-FRAMED HOUSE APPROXIMATELY 10 METRES TO SOUTH OF WINDHILL
FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132804
Name: WINDHILL FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1193148

Name: GUIDE PILLAR AT ROAD JUNCTION SOUTH OF LANGLEY BROOK ON NORTH WEST SIDE
OF JUNCTION
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132803
Name: MILESTONE APPROXIMATELY 400 METRES WEST OF JUNCTION WITH UNDERBANK
LANE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1151116
Name: Unsliven Bridge, Stocksbridge
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1444526
OS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS | Esri, HERE | © Historic England.
Name: UNSLIVENBRIDGE FARMHOUSE AND ATTACHED BARN AND COWHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132808
Name: GREEN FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1193105
Name: BARN AT GREEN FARM APPROXIMATELY 15 METRES TO NORTH WEST OF
FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314586
Name: GUIDE PILLAR AT JUNCTION WITH PEG FOLLY ON SOUTH SIDE OF JUNCTION
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1193130
Stocksbridge
Name: MILEPOST APPROXIMATELY 20 METRES EAST OF JUNCTION WITH PARK DRIVE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286340
Name: POT HOUSE FARM COTTAGES
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1193179

Deepcar
Name: FARM BUILDING AT POT HOUSE FARM ADJOINING FARMHOUSE TO NORTH
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132805
Name: Glass furnace, Bolsterstone
Designation Type: Scheduling
Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
List UID: 1004803
Name: BARN AT NUMBER 17
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132799
Name: MILEPOST OPPOSITE NUMBER 220 APPROXIMATELY 200 METRES NORTH WEST OF
JUNCTION WITH HAYWOOD LANE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314584
Name: BARN AND FARM BUILDINGS APPROXIMATELY 15 METRES TO NORTH EAST OF ROYD
FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314585
Name: ROYD FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286318
OS, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, NGA, USGS | Esri, HERE | © Historic England.
Name: BARN APPROXIMATELY 30 METRES TO EAST OF NUMBER 15
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1193193
Name: UPPER TOWNEND FARM HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1193208
Name: LOWER TOWNEND FARMHOUSE, COTTAGE AND ATTACHED BARN
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132807

Around Moor Hall
Name: BARN AND COWHOUSE AT EDGE END FARM APPROXIMATELY 25 METRES TO SOUTH
EAST OF FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132806
Name: BARN AT PEAS BLOOM APPROXIMATELY 10 METRES TO SOUTH EAST OF HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132802
WEST OF HALL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314587
Name: MORE HALL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1366106
Name: BARN AT OLD THORN HOUSE FARM, APPROXIMATELY 30 METRES TO NORTH WEST
OF HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132821
Name: BARN AT FAIR HURST FARM APPROXIMATELY 30 METRES TO EAST OF HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132871
Name: BARN AT RAYNOR HOUSE APPROXIMATELY 20 METRES TO NORTH WEST OF HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314572
Name: ROCHER FARMHOUSE INCLUDING ADJOINING BARN
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192249
Bolsterstone
Name: CASTLE COTTAGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132800

Name: PORTERS LODGE, BOLSTERSTONE CASTLE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132801
Name: K6 TELEPHONE KIOSK AT JUNCTION WITH WALDER'S LANE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1240435
Name: CHURCH OF ST MARY
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132798
Name: Bolsterstone War Memorial
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1452872
Name: BOLSTERSTONE STOCKS
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286346
Around Broomhead
Name: YEW TREE FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1240698
Name: YEW TREE COTTAGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1240678
Name: DWARRIDEN CRUCK BARN, APPROXIMATELY 200 METRES SOUTH EAST OF JUNCTION
WITH RUSHY LANE AND MILL LANE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132876
West of Broomhead
Name: OLD BOOTH FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192204

Name: STABLE BLOCK TO BROOMHEAD HALL, INCORPORATING FARMBUILDINGS
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132849
Name: Ewden Beck round barrow cemetery and cross-dyke
Designation Type: Scheduling
Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
List UID: 1018590
Name: Ewden Beck ring-cairn.
Designation Type: Scheduling
Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
List UID: 1010769
Name: SALT SPRINGS FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192998
Name: GARLIC HOUSE FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1240555
Name: Round cairn 200m west of Margery Hill triangulation pillar
Designation Type: Scheduling
Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
Warncliffe Side to Hurkling Edge
Name: East and West Roadside Barns, and Small Group of Outbuildings in the Yard of Old
Hall Farmhouse
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1421530
Name: HIGH LEA COTTAGE AND HIGH LEA FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191690
Name: GUIDE PILLAR AT JUNCTION WITH BRIGHTHOLMLEE ROAD ON SOUTH WEST SIDE OF
JUNCTION
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314557

Name: SWINNOCK HALL AND ATTACHED COWHOUSE AND BARN
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132820
Name: GLEN HOWE PACKHORSE BRIDGE, APPROXIMATELY 100 METRES UPSTREAM OF
COTTAGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1281510
Name: MILEPOST AT CONJUNCTION WITH LANGSETT ROAD NORTH
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132862
Name: GUIDE PILLAR AT JUNCTION WITH BRIGHTOLMLEE ROAD AND PEAT PITS LANE ON
SOUTH SIDE OF JUNCTION
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192317
Name: GUIDE PILLAR AT JUNCTION WITH ONESMOOR ROAD ON WEST SIDE OF JUNCTION
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286982
Name: GUIDE PILLAR AT HANDSOME CROSS ON NORTH SIDE OF ROAD
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192353
Name: Cowell Flat prehistoric field system, 350m south east of Mortimer House
Designation Type: Scheduling
Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
List UID: 1017833
Name: The Bar Dyke linear earthwork
Designation Type: Scheduling
Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
List UID: 1017508
Name: Ring cairn, 340m north west of Mortimer House
Designation Type: Scheduling
Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
List UID: 1017667
Name: Cairnfield on Broomhead Moor, 500m north west of Mortimer House
Designation Type: Scheduling

Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
List UID: 1018039
Name: GUIDE PILLAR AT JUNCTION WITH MORTIMER ROAD ON SOUTH SIDE OF JUNCTION
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132857
Around Agden
Name: BOWSEN CRUCK BARN, APPROXIMATELY 450 METRES WEST OF THE JUNCTION WITH
BROWN HOUSE LANE AND BOLSTERONE LANE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286629
Name: BARN AND COWHOUSE AT SMALLFIELD HOUSE, APRROXIMATELY 15 METRES TO
NOTH WEST OF HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314573
Name: WOODSEATS FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314560
Name: BARN AT WOODSEATS FARM APPROXIMATELY 25 METRES TO NORTH EAST OF
HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192742
Name: CRUCK BARN AT WALKER HOUSE FARM
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1260969
Around Strines AND Dale Dike
Name: LOWER THORNSEAT FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191778
Name: BYEWASH BRIDGE AT DALE DIKE RESERVOIR
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191667

Name: BARN APPROXIMATELY 20 METRES NORTH EAST OF HALLFIELD HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314569
Name: HALLFIELD HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192122
Name: BARN APPROXIMATELY 5 METRES TO WEST OF HOYLES FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191647
Name: HOYLES FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132867
Name: BARN APPROXIMATELY 250 METRES TO SOUTH WEST OF HOYLES FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132868
Name: SUGWORTH HALL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314556
Name: SUGWORTH TOWER
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1203769
Name: STRINES INN
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192191
Name: TAKE OFF STONE APPROX 85 METRES TO NORTH OF STRINES PUBLIC HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1203771
Name: BROGGIN HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132846
Bradfield and Ughill

Name: Bailey Hill motte and bailey castle, High Bradfield
Designation Type: Scheduling
Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
List UID: 1013217
Name: CHURCH OF ST NICHOLAS
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: I
List UID: 1192617
Name: THE WATCH HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132879
Name: OLD POST OFFICE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286542
Name: GATE PIERS, GATES AND IRON RAILINGS TO SOUTH AND EAST OF CHURCHYARD AT
CHURCH OF ST NICHOLAS
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132824
Name: STABLES TO OLD POST OFFICE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132823
Name: CHURCH COTTAGE VESTRY COTTAGE WESLEY COTTAGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314559
Name: K6 TELEPHONE KIOSK AT JUNCTION WITH KIRK EDGE ROAD
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1281548
Name: Castle Hill motte and bailey castle, High Bradfield
Designation Type: Scheduling
Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
List UID: 101761
Name: NETHER FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132838

Name: GARAGE AND STABLE IMMEDIATELY TO WEST OF FAIR HOUSE FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132864
Name: FAIR HOUSE FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II*
List UID: 1132863
Name: BRADFIELD PARISH COUNCIL OFFICES AND FLAT
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314568
Name: BURNSIDE COTTAGES BURNSIDE FLAT THE POPLARS
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191934
Name: FOX HOLES FARMHOUSE, ATTACHED FARMBUILDINGS AND LINKING WALLS
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132817
Name: MONUMENT APPROXIMATELY 110 METRES WEST OF JUNCTION WITH UGHILL ROAD
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132818
Name: BARN AND COWHOUSE APPROXIMATELY 15 METRES TO SOUTH EAST OF UGHILL
MANOR
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192583
Name: UGHILL MANOR
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132822
Around Damflask
Name: BARN AND COTTAGE AT FAIR FLATS FARM APPROXIMATELY 5 METRES TO WEST OF
HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191912

Name: FAR HOUSE FARMHOUSE AND ATTACHED OUTBUILDING UNDER SAME ROOF
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132878
Name: HOLDWORTH COTTAGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132840
Name: OAKS FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1203770
Name: BARN AT BRIERS HOUSE FARM APPROXIMATELY 15 METRES TO EAST OF HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132869
Oughtibridge to Bradfield
Name: ONESACRE HALL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II*
List UID: 1191806
Name: BARN APPROXIMATELY 35 METRES TO SOUTH WEST OF ONESACRE HALL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314542
Name: RURAL COTTAGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314543
Name: LOW FOLD FARMHOUSE AND BARN ATTACHED
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286866
Name: BURTON HOUSE FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286936
Name: GUIDE PILLAR AT JUNCTION WITH BURNT HILL LANE, EAST SIDE OF JUNCTION
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314544

Name: BURTON HOUSE FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286936
Name: 64, TOWNGATE ROAD
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192635
Name: 66, TOWNGATE ROAD
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132825
Name: FOX HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314558
Name: IRON RAILINGS, FLIGHT OF GARDEN STEPS AND ASSOCIATED RETAINING WALL
APPROXIMATELY 15 METRES TO EAST OF MIDDLEWOOD HALL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286721
Name: MIDDLEWOOD HALL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132850
Name: COACHHOUSE AND STABLE BLOCK TO REAR OF MIDDLEWOOD HALL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132851
Name: GATE PIERS TO DRIVE OF MIDDLEWOOD HALL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314567
Name: MILEPOST APPROXIMATELY 50 METRES NORTH OF JUNCTION WITH STOCKARTH
LANE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314537
Name: MIDDLEWOOD HOSPITAL KINGSWAY WARD
Designation Type: Listing

Grade: II
List UID: 1268261
Name: CHURCH AT MIDDLEWOOD HOSPITAL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1268262
Loxley to Damflask
Name: WOOD LANE HOUSE FARM COUNTRYSIDE CENTRE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1254596
Name: MEETING AND EXHIBITION ROOMS ON NORTH EAST SIDE OF MOUSEHOLE FORGE
(FORGE NOT INCLUDED)
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1247411
Name: Mousehole Forge, Malin Bridge
Designation Type: Scheduling
Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
List UID: 1004804
Name: WOOD LANE HOUSE FARM COUNTRYSIDE CENTRE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1254596
Name: ROBIN HOOD INN
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132877
Name: COWHOUSE APPROXIMATELY 15 METRES WEST OF NUMBER 603 (CHASE FARM)
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132841
Name: RIVER DALE HOUSE AND RIVER DALE COTTAGES
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1379967
Name: ROLLING MILL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II*
List UID: 1132839

Dungworth
Name: Little Matlock rolling mill immediately south and east of Olive Terrace
Designation Type: Scheduling
Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
List UID: 1019857
Name: OLIVE WHEEL MILL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132866
Name: OLIVE COTTAGES
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191636
Name: OLIVE HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314540
Name: LOXLEY UNITED REFORMED CHURCH
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II*
List UID: 1314565
Name: PACKHORSE BRIDGE OVER RIVER LOXLEY AT CROFT HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1261011
Name: OLD WHEEL FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286646
Name: BARN AT THROSTLE NEST ATTACHED TO WEST END OF HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132819
Name: BARN AND COWHOUSE AT HALL BROOM FARM APPROXIMATELY 20 METRES TO
WEST OF FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192426
Name: HALL BROOM FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing

Grade: II
List UID: 1132858
Name: COWHOUSE TO REAR OF TOMHILL FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132843
Name: WESTERN CRUCK BARN AT TOMHILL FARM APPROXIMATELY 5 METRES TO WEST OF
HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132842
Name: TOMHILL FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314566
Name: GREEN FOLD FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191784
Name: PADLEY COTTAGES PADLEY FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132875
Name: GATE PIERS TO PADLEY FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191791
Name: SYKEHOUSE WITH ATTACHED OUTBUILDINGS
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1281549
Name: CART SHED AT BENTS FARM, ABOUT 15 METRES NORTH WEST OF FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314538
Around Nethergate
Name: STANNINGTON CROSS AT JUNCTION WITH STANNINGTON ROAD ON WEST SIDE OF
JUNCTION
Designation Type: Listing

Grade: II
List UID: 1132854
Name: POND FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132860
Name: WHITE HOUSE FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132852
Name: WELL HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192284
Name: CHRIST CHURCH
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1191772
Name: FOX HOUSE FARMHOUSE AND ATTACHED COTTAGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286472
Name: SPOUT HOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192462
Name: KEEPER'S HOUSE ADJOINING UNDERBANK CHAPEL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286604
Name: UNDERBANK CHAPEL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132859
Name: SCHOOL AT JUNCTION WITH RIGGS LOW ROAD
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314594
Rivelin Valley

Name: HOLLINS BRIDGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1270444
Name: MONUMENT AND RAILINGS TO GH FOSTER 7 METRES WEST OF ST MICHAELS
CEMETERY CHAPEL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1271041
Name: ST MICHAELS CEMETERY CHAPEL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1247140
Name: WALSH MONUMENT AND RAILING AT RIVELIN GLEN CEMETERY
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1247141
Name: ROSCOE BRIDGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1247139
Name: COPPICE HOUSE FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1271046
Name: KING EDWARD VII ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1247137
Name: ENTRANCE LODGE TO KING EDWARD VII ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1247100
Name: BOILER HOUSE 5 METRES NORTH OF KING EDWARD VII ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1247099
Name: OCTAGONAL OUTBUILDING 30 METRES WEST OF KING EDWARD VII ORTOPAEDIC
HOSPITAL
Designation Type: Listing

Grade: II
List UID: 1247138
Name: PACKHORSE BRIDGE 70 METRES EAST OF RAILS ROAD BRIDGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1271042
Name: RIVELIN MILL BRIDGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1246609
Name: REVELL GRANGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132865
Name: BINGLEY SEAT
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132827
Name: FLASH COTTAGE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1286884
Name: RONKSLEY HALL FARMHOUSE
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1192325
Name: MILE POST APPROXIMATELY 90 METRES WEST OF DRIVEWAY TO SWINGLEE FORD
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314574
Name: MILE POST APPROXIMATELY 140 METRES EAST OF BLACK ROCK
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1132861
Name: MILEPOST APPROXIMATELY 80 METRES WEST OF DRIVEWAY TO MOSCAR CROSS
FARM
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1314536

Redmires and south of Rivelin Valley
Name: Redmires First World War Training Area
Designation Type: Scheduling
Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
List UID: 1417488
Name: Stone circle on Ash Cabin Flat, 560m north east of Reservoir Cottages
Designation Type: Scheduling
Grade: Not Applicable to this List Entry
List UID: 1016623
Name: THE BARNCLIFF STOOP
Designation Type: Listing
Grade: II
List UID: 1389517

Appendix 7
Access and Gateways to the
Landscape Appraisal

Access and Gateways to the Landscape Appraisal
"A landscape for everyone to value, enjoy, understand and feel part of"
Submitted to:
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
37 Stafford Road
S2 2SF
Submitted by:
Outdoor Recreation Research Group (ORRG)
Sheffield Hallam University
Sheffield
S10 2BP
Tel: +44 (0)114 225 5928
Email: m.gregory@shu.ac.uk
16 th February 2018

Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Our remit / advisory role .................................................................................................................... 4
3. Existing strategies and policies relevant to this area .......................................................................... 5
4. Why is this area so valued by local residents and visitors? ................................................................ 6
5. Visitor patterns and recreational use - secondary data .................................................................... 10
6. Visitor patterns and recreational use - primary data........................................................................ 17
7. Site summaries and stakeholder views ............................................................................................. 31
8. Our recommendations to enhance enjoyment of the area's heritage and reconnect local people
and visitors to the landscape ................................................................................................................ 45
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Promoted Recreational Routes
Appendix 2 - Full SLLP Area Map (size A0)
Appendix 3 - ORRG SLLP Strategy Review Matrix
Appendix 4 - Statement of Significance ORRG Contribution
Appendix 5 - Stakeholder Consultation List
Appendix 6 - Route Suggestions Matrix
Appendix 7 - SCC Suggestions
Appendix 8 - PDNPA Suggestions
Appendix 9 - Mapping of survey data
Appendix 10 - Condition surveys and costings - to follow from Tom Newman

1. Introduction
Sheffield is a city built on seven hills, and it is that landscape - and its rivers, woodlands and mineral
resources - which has produced the communities and industries we see today. A sense of place and
of local distinctiveness remains very strong amongst the city's residents. A third of the city lies in the
Peak District National Park - the first national park to be designated in the UK, largely as a result of
local campaigning groups fighting for access to the area and for its long term protection. Sheffield
has long been known as the `outdoor city`, with both its green spaces and access for walkers, horse
riders and cyclists, celebrated for many years. Sheffield is home to approaching 600,000 people and
is reported to have over two million trees, more trees per person than any other city in Europe.
Sheffield is home to 83 parks and there are 170 woodland areas within the city (Sheffield City
Council website, accessed 2017).
The Sheffield Lakelands Landscape Partnership (SLLP) area is an integral part of that celebrated
landscape. Its four river valleys (the River Rivelin, the River Loxley, the Ewden Beck, and the Little
Don River) cut across a landscape of high gritstone moorland, farmland, and both coniferous
plantation and mixed woodland. The Partnership has committed to a shared vision for:
“A wilder, more natural and resilient landscape of native clough woodland, descending down from the
moorland slopes to the reservoirs, streams and farmlands below, alive to the sound of curlews and lapwings,
and crossed by a lattice work of drystone walls and accessible paths and bye-ways. A landscape that provides
clean air and water, supports wildlife, helps to reduce flooding and improves peoples’ health & wellbeing. A
landscape for everyone to value, enjoy, understand – and feel part of".
3

2. Our remit / advisory role
The SLLP aims to achieve the following four broad outcomes;
A more connected and resilient landscape in which landowners agree a joint vision for the
future care and management of the area.
A better natural environment for people and wildlife, with a shared understanding of what
makes the area special and the vital eco-system services the area provides.
A deeper understanding of the area's rich cultural heritage, celebrated by local people and
visitors.
More people active and engaged in the future of the area - a landscape for all to learn about,
value, experience and enjoy - and feel part of.
Sheffield Hallam University's Outdoor Recreation Research Group (ORRG) was commissioned to
contribute to the SLLP objectives in the following ways:
1. Providing an overview of current policy and projects - What projects? Where? Remit/scope?
Involvement? Plans?
2. Understanding and mapping current access.
3. Stakeholder consultation - What are the local priorities for the area? Visions and
aspirations?
4. Engagement with users and non-users to identify barriers and gateways to the landscape.
5. Developing costed recommendations to improve accessibility and connectivity, and
contribute to the Landscape Conservation Action Plan (including the statement of
significance).
The approach used in order to achieve the above objectives has been a pragmatic one. The SLLP
project is multi-faceted and complex - there are a wide range of stakeholders with a potential
interest, including the general public, user groups and organisations with a local remit.
Our work has included stakeholder consultation, which has been as wide ranging as possible. We
have arranged specific face-to-face meetings with stakeholders, conducted telephone interviews and
emailed organisational contacts. In addition to this, we have designed and launched an online survey
and undertaken surveying at designated 'gateway' sites. We have obtained local usage data from
Natural England and reviewed research undertaken by Yorkshire Water and the Peak District
National Park Authority. We have also undertaken secondary data analysis of relevant existing data
sets to help us to understand usage of the area, as well as background research of existing
recreational routes and infrastructure. Our understanding of local usage through available data is
only partial; however it helps us to identify potential and, when combined with our survey data and
stakeholder consultation, enables recommendations to be made.
4

3. Existing strategies and policies relevant to this area
Our evaluation of the strategic policies and plans covering the SLLP area emphasises how well the
SLLP delivery outcomes conform to the main local authorities' (Sheffield City Council and the Peak
District National Park Authority) own aspirations, alongside other significant partners, such as
Yorkshire Water. The complete list is provided in the Appendix, and includes an assessment against
the SLLP project outcomes and gateway priorities.
We consider the Sheffield City Council Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007-17 (SCC ROWIP) to be
particularly significant, as meeting some of the aspirations contained in this plan will unlock people's
access to the cultural and natural heritage of the SLLP area, on foot, horseback and by bicycle,
through the provision of vital infrastructure. Good progress has already been made in delivering
outcomes in the SCC ROWIP, but there remain some gaps which cannot currently be addressed
through statutory responsibilities and existing programmes of work.
The Outdoor City Economic Strategy provides vital evidence underpinning the importance of
recreation and tourism development for economic regeneration in Sheffield. In addition, there are
other strategies, such as the Sheffield Waterways Strategy and the South Yorkshire Green
Infrastructure Plan, which emphasise the importance of the river valleys to Sheffield in providing
access and connections for both people and nature. Policies in the Peak District National Park
Authority's current Management Plan and Yorkshire Water's 25 Year Blueprint Plan demonstrate
that these major partners in the SLLP are also supportive of enhancements to access to cultural and
natural heritage for both local residents and visitors to the area.
The strategic policies and plans reviewed enable the SLLP to proceed with confidence in its vision to
create a landscape for everyone to value, enjoy, understand – and feel part of.
5

4. Why is this area so valued by local residents and visitors?
Our contacts with local individuals and researchers in the area, along with our primary data
collection, have provided a more detailed insight into what makes this area so special for both local
people and visitors. A combination of cultural and natural heritage provides this local distinctiveness,
and could be further explained and interpreted in order to add to people's understanding and
enjoyment of the area, and reinforce their engagement and sense of place. Many individuals and
local groups have already undertaken much recording and sharing of the history and stories
associated with the local landscape. The SLLP project can build on existing cultural and natural
heritage knowledge, to form a basis for increased interpretation and enjoyment by local people and
visitors to enable a broader range of people to enjoy this sense of place and its connection to the
wider city of Sheffield.
Many people visiting and working in the area focus on the huge significance of water in this
relatively `wild` landscape - the reservoirs, local dams and rivers, sited in the open moorland and
steep-sided valleys. These features are clearly one of the main draws of the area. However, local
landscape historian, Professor Melvyn Jones (personal communication, 2017), also suggests that
another important factor is its `continuity` of human habitation and use. There are records dating
back to the Mesolithic of bilberry picking in the area. Reginald Gatty, Reverend at Bradfield in 1880s,
developed an extensive collection of Mesolithic flint tools from c.10,000 BC - as the ice ages left and
the environment turned from tundra to forest (Melvyn Jones, 2013 "The Making of Sheffield"). This
history chimes with the HLF funded project "10,000 Years of Human History" - part of the "Stone to
Steel" initiative developed by the Steel Valley Project based in Stocksbridge
(https://steelvalleyproject.org/).
In the medieval period, this area would have been a district of hamlets and single farms. There is
evidence of many open fields around Bradfield and Dungworth, but also a mosaic of small,
irregularly shaped, walled fields - some possibly originating in the Iron Age. Bailey Hill, a high manmade
conical mound that is a Scheduled Ancient Monument, lies close to High Bradfield
(https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1013217). Most authors believe Bailey Hill is
the remains of a Norman motte-and-bailey castle. About 500 metres to the southeast of the village
is Castle Hill, a site marked on old maps as a “supposed Saxon encampment” (David Hey, 1979, "The
Making of South Yorkshire").
Later in the 18 th and 19 th centuries, we see the evidence of humans travelling through the landscape
to trade and work. Howard Smith (cited by Melvyn Jones, 1997, in "Aspects of Sheffield") has written
about the packhorse routes used for transporting salt from Cheshire - and on return exporting
products from Sheffield to America. Many old signposts still exist from this period on these routes.
Professor Melvyn Jones (personal communication, 2017) also describes evidence of a fire on
Broomhead Moors in 1826, caused by a bilberry picker dropping burning tobacco from her pipe. A
mass trespass of hundreds of bilberry pickers in 1848 supposedly caused extensive damage to fences
and stock, and gamekeepers claimed that grouse poachers were actually claiming to be bilberry
pickers during this latter incident (Ian Rotherham, 2011, "The End of Tradition?: Part 1. A History of
Commons and Commons Management").
6

It is important to demonstrate the linkages between people's use of our landscapes in the ancient
past, through the development of our local communities and the industries which support them,
into the modern era - not just chronologically, but also spatially and socially. Leisure use of the SLLP
area is very much a modern phenomenon, as well as a historical one, as the bus tours of the 1950s
to "Sheffield's Lakelands`, and the even more recent Grand Depart for the 2014 Tour de France
demonstrate. The trials of Second World War prisoners (held at the Redmires P.O.W. Camp in the
1940s) eventually settling in a foreign land, resonate with the experiences of refugees today, and
Sheffield's role as a `City of Sanctuary`. These linkages and `stories` can help people to reconnect
with their local areas. More recommendations about specific themes to explore further are provided
in Section 8.
This continuity of human habitation and use is still recorded and celebrated in the SLLP area today,
with extremely active history societies in Bradfield and Stocksbridge, with excellent local archives
and committed members (http://www.bradfieldarchives.co.uk/index.html and
http://www.stocksbridgehs.co.uk/society). There are also several individuals with important stories
to tell and personal research which needs to be captured, to better appreciate the area.
Alongside this significant cultural heritage, is the area's rich natural heritage. Over half of the project
area falls within the Peak District National Park and the western margin includes the Dark Peak Site
of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protected Area and Special Area of Conservation. The area,
therefore, represents a valuable buffer between the protected habitats and Sheffield's urban fringe.
Promotion of recreation and access in the area needs to take account of the need to protect
vulnerable habitats and species.
A preliminary overview provided by the ORRG's Professor Ian Rotherham emphasises the
importance of the following habitats and species, not just in terms of biodiversity, but also their
contribution to this cultural landscape:-
• Extensive ancient woodlands: – including clough-side and ‘shadow wood’ areas
(woodland flora, mammals including badger and deer spp., birds such as pied flycatchers
etc.); wet alder woods are especially significant and vulnerable.
• Extensive plantations: – often of exotic conifers but today with high landscape value and
some very significant nature conservation interest (such as pine marten, crossbill, siskin,
redpoll, goshawk and other birds of prey, and green woodpecker)
• Gritstone crags and edges: – together with associated cloughs and tallus slopes. These
hold highly significant resources of shadow woods, and key wildlife species such as ring
ouzel, wheatear, sometimes nightjar, pine marten, mountain hare, badger, and specially
protected birds like peregrine falcon nesting.
• Clough woodlands: – associated with the above. These can hold especially vulnerable
populations of rare ferns and other woodland flora.
• Moorland, bog and heath: - this is an internationally recognised resource, with high levels
of nature conservation interest (with bird species such as redshank, golden plover,
curlew, lapwing, snipe, reintroduced black grouse, merlin, short-eared owl, wintering
rough-legged buzzard, breeding and wintering hen harrier etc).
7

• Associated farmland: - around the great moorland blocks are extensive areas of farmland
some with ancient meadows, pastures and gorse or scrub habitats. Much of this has now
been agriculturally ‘improved’ and so is of considerably reduced interest and value.
Abandonment of traditional management may now be a serious cause of ecological and
heritage decline, but these peripheral areas were formerly very important to many
moorland birds like lapwing, snipe and curlew.
• Reservoirs: - the ‘natural’ landscape has been hugely modified for water gathering and
management in two main phases:
1) Creation of millponds along all the main watercourses for industrial development
from the 1500s to the 1900s. These have some botanical interest plus of course
associated (protected) bats, and frequently wet habitats and some veteran trees;
2) Creation of major water supply reservoirs from the 1800s to the mid-1900s. These
have developed into a significant resource for local birdlife. Important sites for: (a)
Breeding birds: – especially around the reservoir margins e.g. common sandpiper,
little grebe, great crested grebe, grey heron, goosander, waterfowl generally, and
many woodland edge species; (b) Wintering birds: – particularly waterfowl e.g.
goldeneye duck, other duck species, grebes, divers, and major roosts of various gull
species; and (c) Migrating birds: – in both spring and autumn migration periods,
reservoirs can be important stopping-off / re-fuelling sites for migrant birds such as
waders, including rarities.
The resident's perspective: the best things about the area
During summer 2017, a series of community consultations were held at local shows and events. They
sought to identify the 'best things' about the Lakeland area from the perspective of its residents.
Consultations took place at locations in Broomhead, Oughtibridge, Stannington, Worrall and
Stocksbridge.
Overall 'Damflask' reservoir was the most commonly cited 'best loved' feature within the
area, coming top at three out of the five events.
In Stocksbridge, 'Underbank' reservoir was the most popular asset, closely followed by
Broomhead, Ewden, Bradfield and Dale Dike. The 'open countryside, the views and the
people' were also described as local highlights by Stocksbridge residents.
Langsett reservoir was the most popular feature cited by visitors to the Broomhead Show,
with the Bradfield pubs (The Plough and the Nags Head), the community spirit and the
'perfect dog walking' discussed as assets which were highly valued. One respondent
described how the area is 'unspoilt' ("let the hoards go to Derbyshire") and a 'hidden gem'
and another described the area's early Neolithic settlement history as special.
Attendees at the Stannington Carnival liked the area's proximity to the city, 'unspoilt
countryside', 'fantastic assets on our doorstep - running, family walks, dog walks' and
'mountain biking'. The following pleas were made: 'keep some wilder bits for wildlife' and
'don't change anything, just keep looking after it…' ("it's perfect as it is"). One respondent
described the views from Edgemount across the three reservoirs as "the best view in
8

England", another described how "going over Lodge Moor is like Austria but we don't
appreciate it".
Various respondents stated that they feel 'spoilt for choice' and 'so lucky to live where we
do'.
Special memories of the area included: "[I] used to walk to Canyards with my mum when I
was a child to pick bilberries to sell, so that my mum could buy us winter shoes. We used to
pick baskets and baskets full and have them all in the cellar"; "had great memories of going
up there [Rocher Head farm] on holiday from Sheffield in the 1950s, [and] remember seeing
the Sheffield Lakeland bus tours"; "[I] used to walk from our house above Agden to Bradfield
School. When my mum had a new baby and couldn't come and pick me up, she used to send
the dog (farm Alsatian) to get me".
In terms of potential improvements for the area, the suggestions made included the
following: more bridleways; "good push chair friendly routes and knowing where to go so we
don’t get stuck part way"; open water swimming; and better/more interpretation of the
flood ("people in Sheffield don't understand how important the rivers were, Sheffield
wouldn't be here without them").
9

5. Visitor patterns and recreational use - secondary data
Some of these valleys have a long history of recreation and access, particularly since the demise of a
range of small industrial sites in the area, leaving a legacy of often neglected dams and some
infrastructure of cultural interest. But the area has traditionally been less visited than the western
and southern parts of Sheffield, largely because access to the moorland was restricted in the past.
This is illustrated below by the maps from Strava (2016) and Suunto (2017).
Map 1: Strava data (2016) - highlighting the most intensive areas of usage in south west Sheffield.
10

Maps 2 and 3: Suunto data (2017) which highlights the importance of the reservoirs for recreational
use, particularly Damflask
[N.B. The white circle on the left hand map is simply showing my location on accessing the maps].
Through existing contacts we also negotiated access to a regional sub-sample of the MENE
(Monitoring Engagement with the Natural Environment 2015) data provided by Natural England.
This data is mapped below - see map 4. It is important to note that the location of the red dots is
arbitrary and is simply the mid-point of each Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) which is a
geographic point illustrating where people using/visiting each area travel from (maps 5 and 6
showing the LSOAs for Bradfield and Redmires illustrate this). The map is indicative of the following:
There is a contrast between the Stocksbridge Town Council area and the remainder of the
SLLP.
Recreational walking/visits within the Stocksbridge and Deepcar area remain in this area.
Visitors to Bolsterstone come from further afield.
There are few, if any, recreational visits to Oughtibridge or Wharncliffe Side.
Beyond these northern neighbourhoods, visits to the SLLP area are from further afield (i.e.
from outside Sheffield).
o This applies to Bradfield and its environs, Loxley/Stannington/Dungworth and
Rivelin/Redmires to the south.
The rural landscape is the main draw, which attracts visitors from further away. Whilst
Stocksbridge is a key gateway site serving local residents.
11

Map 4 - MENE data - this map shows the usage of Stockbridge by people from the surrounding area
and the larger distances travelled to access Bradfield, Loxley, Rivelin and Redmires.
Map 5: Bradfield LSOA area
Map 6: Redmires LSOA area
Areas to the south and west of the city of Sheffield have a long standing tradition of access, either
because they have been owned by organisations such as the National Trust or because of
accommodating landowners providing voluntary access agreements, particularly in the Peak District
National Park. Tourism opportunities and businesses have developed as a result. But much of the
land around local reservoirs in the SLLP area has either been owned by private landowners (most
often used for grouse shooting and sheep farming), or by water companies which, in the past, did
not particularly encourage recreation to their catchment areas or to the water itself.
12

This has now changed. Recreational `honey pot` sites are developing, particularly associated with the
main reservoirs (discussed below under the `Gateways` section). The 2002 Countryside and Rights of
Way Act provided a right of open access to uncultivated land - particularly affecting the moorland in
the area (although it will take many more years for a tradition of using these rights to develop fully).
Perhaps most significantly, the water company - Yorkshire Water - is now actively promoting
recreation on its own land and on its reservoirs in the area.
A wide range of local organisations and residents have confirmed the main attractions of this area
(as described in Section 4). It's main significance for visitors and local residents alike is the presence
of both the reservoirs and the river valleys, embedded in a landscape of national importance -
seemingly unspoilt and `wild`.
There are a wide range of specific sites highlighted as priority areas for improvements to access
within the survey results. Named sites include: Loxley Valley, Ewden Valley, Midhope, Underbank,
Damflask, Broomhead / Morehall, Stocksbridge, Deepcar, Rivelin, Redmires, Langsett, Oughtibridge,
Bradfield, Dale Dike / Strines, Agden, Little Don Trail (and a few others which are outside the SLLP
area: Ladybower, Grenoside and Wharncliffe). The data clearly highlights the importance / value
placed on the reservoirs and rivers by the public. Improvements to the Loxley Valley, Ewden Valley,
Rivelin Valley and Broomhead / Morehall, Redmires, Langsett and Bradfield are the most frequently
cited areas for improvements.
Our previous experience and conversations with stakeholders suggests that the pattern of recreation
we now see developing falls largely in to two categories. Mapping our primary survey data and
postcode analysis reinforces these findings.
Visitors travelling (largely by car) to `honey pot` sites, such as Langsett, Bradfield and
Redmires, where there is known visitor infrastructure - specifically car parking, but also
information provision, refreshment facilities, etc. Visitors often stay close to these hubs, or
undertake various recreational routes, walking, running and cycling, and some horse riding.
Dog walking is particularly popular. These sites are relatively well-known and promoted
online, as well as by word of mouth, as they all lie in the Peak District National Park.
Local residents accessing the area `close to where they live`, via access points largely
associated with the main river valleys. Examples include Malin Bridge in the Rivelin and
Loxley valleys, Loxley and Wadsley Common, and the various access points to the south west
of Stocksbridge. These access points are much used by dog walkers, local ramblers, horse
riders and runners, and access from home is often on foot, although some sites are well
served by local public transport.
Sheffield is well known as a city for outdoor recreation enthusiasts. Our previous research to
establish an evidence base to support the Outdoor City work confirmed this status. In particular
Sheffield was noted to have an international reputation for climbing and downhill Mountain Biking.
The Peak District has national significance for outdoor recreation and Sheffield has the accolade of
being the UK's greenest city. Despite its urban location, almost three quarters of the city is taken up
by natural vegetation and waterways. The following two maps illustrate 'hot spots' for walking and
cycling within Sheffield. They both illustrate the popularity of Bradfield and also highlight usage at
Redmires, Langsett, Ewden Valley, Bolsterstone and Stocksbridge.
13

Maps 7 and 8 - produced by Sheffield Hallam University for our research 'Valuing Sheffield's
Outdoor Economy' (creating an Outdoor City evidence base) 2014.
The following map highlights key areas for different and more wide ranging activities through
Sheffield. They show the dominance of usage of the Peak District and how, in comparison, the SLLP
14

area could be viewed as a 'hidden gem'. The map highlights the prominence of walking, running and
cycling in the Bradfield area.
Map 9: Participation in activities across Sheffield (source: SHU - Valuing Sheffield's Outdoor
Economy)
Recent information provided by the Ordnance Survey
(https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2017/08/snowdon-tops-list-britains-troddenpaths/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SocialSignIn&utm_content=PR+
and+brand) analysing its downloaded walking routes, demonstrated that Sheffield was one of the
top five urban areas in terms of downloaded routes (along with Ambleside, Keswick, Richmond upon
Thames and Bath) - a remarkable statistic for a large industrial city. Their associated `heat map` of
the city also confirms our findings that the majority of downloaded routes are out to the south and
west of the city, with much less interest in the north west area of the SLLP.
15

Map 10: Ordinance Survey Photosteam highlighting Sheffield (Source - OS Photostream, Flickr -
accessed 21/12/2017 - https://www.flickr.com/photos/osmapping/35810253634/in/dateposted/).
The popularity of outdoor recreation in Sheffield, and its long historical association with walking in
particular, also accounts for the very wide range of informal recreation routes promoted by local
communities, user groups and individuals. A more complete list is provided in the Appendix, which
reinforces the pattern of recreation described above. There is long standing and significant interest
from a wide range of organisations - formal and informal - in promoting recreation and improving
access to the SLLP area.
Summary
The SLLP area has traditionally been less visited than the western and southern parts of
Sheffield, mainly due to historical factors.
The usage data analysed confirms that whilst this remains the case, recreational `honey pot`
sites are developing, particularly associated with the main reservoirs.
The pattern of recreational access falls into two categories; local usage of local sites by foot
and visitors from further afield visiting honey pot sites predominantly by car.
Ordnance Survey data highlights that Sheffield is one of the top five urban areas in terms of
downloaded routes (along with Ambleside, Keswick, Richmond upon Thames and Bath) - a
remarkable statistic for a large industrial city.
Yorkshire Water is now actively promoting recreation on its own land and on its reservoirs in
the area (through a zoned approach which attracts visitors to some areas whilst protecting
others for quiet enjoyment and operational reasons).
The survey and usage data combined clearly highlights the importance / value placed on the
reservoirs and rivers by the public.
16

6. Primary survey data
This section of the report provides an overview of the primary data collected from on-site surveying,
community consultation events and online surveys. The following statistics are based on the data
from 1,026 respondents. Additional maps which display data by area can be found in Appendix 9.
6.1. Surveying methodology
The 1,026 surveys were completed in a variety of places to capture users on-site, users and nonusers
through community events and the general public through an online survey. Due to the time of
year (surveying was undertaken between late October to early December), a selection of Christmas
themed community events were included at different venues across the area. We also incorporated
surveying at event/venues which people were likely to travel to from the surrounding areas e.g. the
Christmas Tree Farm at Dungworth, Fox Valley shopping centre and the Percy Pud 10km race.
During face-to-face surveying, members of the public were selected at random and invited to
complete a survey. The surveys were designed for self-completion, although some were
administered by our research team at the request of respondents. It should be noted that there was
no caveat that respondents needed to be residents of the SLLP area to complete a survey, although
all surveying undertaken was at local sites and events within the area.
The online survey was not targeted specifically to user groups but promoted via generic public
forums, again to encourage non-users to respond. This included: Action for Stannington (241
members), Stannington Brass Band (550 members), Stocksbridge and Deepcar Community Forum
(2,457 members), Stocksbridge and Surrounding Areas Community Forum (6,602 members),
Stocksbridge, Deepcar and Surrounding Area Relaxed Rules Community Forum (7,590 members),
Oughtibridge and Worrall Local Services (579 members), Stocksbridge Out and About (1,725
members), Stocksbridge Community Events (406 members), Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
distribution channels / membership and via Stocksbridge Town Council and Bradfield Parish Council
distribution networks. Several specific user groups also picked up on the survey and distributed it to
their networks including the Ride Sheffield facebook group, British Horse Foundation local networks,
Bradfield and Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome groups and the Dark Peak fell runners.
6.2. Location of surveying
On-site surveying (users) Community surveying (inc. non-users) Online surveys
Langsett 63 Worrall Xmas Fayre 64 Home 486
Rivelin 30 Oughtibridge Village Made 41 Work 76
Damflask (Bradfield) 28 Stocksbridge Xmas Fayre 39 Other 26
Wadsley & Loxley Common 21 Fox Valley 39
Redmires 11 Percy Pud 10k run 23 Unknown 59
Deepcar 3 Dungworth Xmas Tree Farm 17
17

6.3. Postcode analysis
Our postcode analysis shows that S6, S35 and S36 had the highest proportion of survey respondents.
Only postcodes with 10 or more respondents are shown in the table below. Full postcode data is
available on request.
Postcode No. of respondents Postcode No. of respondents
S6 296 S7 23
S35 145 S17 16
S36 139 S2 16
S10 81 S75 15
S11 46 S5 10
S8 31
S6 S35 S36
6.4. Awareness of the project
Awareness of the SLLP project was higher than expected at this stage of the project, with 16% of
respondents (148 people) having heard of the project prior to completing the survey. This provides a
useful baseline measure that can be re-visited later in the project to test levels of public awareness.
In terms of how respondents had heard about the SLLP project, the main sources were as follows:
Local / Social Media 43
Event / Other 21
S&R Wildlife Trust 20
Word of Mouth 20
Work 12
18

6.5. Demographic profile of respondents
Age
Our survey
represented the
views of residents
aged 16 and above.
The highest
proportions of
respondents were
aged 35-44 years
(24%) and 45-59
years (35%). The
mean average age of
residents in the
Stocksbridge and
Upper Don ward is 42
(Census, 2011).
Gender
421,
42%
578,
58%
Female
Male
In terms of gender,
survey respondents
were fairly well split
with a bias towards
females (which is
common for survey
data collection).
There is a small bias
towards females in
the Stocksbridge and
Upper Don ward
(51%).
Disability
77,
8%
92%
No disability
Disability or
limiting illness
In total, 8% of survey
respondents (77
people) had a
disability or condition
which limits their
daily life. This
compares with 9.5%
who had a disability
which affected them
'a lot' within the
Stocksbridge and
Upper Don ward
(census, 2011).
19

Ethnicity
905
(96%)
White
Asian / Asian British
Black
Mixed
Other
2011 census data
from the
Stocksbridge and the
Upper Don ward
highlighted that 98%
of the 18,541
residents were white;
therefore this is likely
to be a fair
representation of the
area's ethnicity
profile.
6.6. Understanding usage
The survey data provides insight into usage of the SLLP area overall and specific sites within it. In
total one quarter of all survey respondents were daily users, with around one third of users doing so
weekly. The remaining respondents were less frequent users with 22% visiting parts of the SLLP
monthly and a further 16% doing so less often. Overall, 3% of all survey respondents (29 people)
'never' used or visited the SLLP area for recreational purposes.
How often do you use / visit any parts of the SLLP area for
leisure or recreation?
16%
3%
25%
34%
Weekly
Monthly
Daily
Less Often
Never
22%
20

The following tables provide a breakdown of usage by site. The key points are:
Usage is relatively high across all sites.
Daily usage is notably high at 'local' sites which are more likely to be accessed by foot rather
than by car.
Rivelin, Bradfield and Stannington experience higher daily usage than other sites and
correspondingly, a very low proportion of respondents 'never' visit these popular sites.
Bradfield and Rivelin have high weekly usage.
The absolute / total user numbers mask significant variations in usage patterns with some
local sites used by a lower number of people but on a more frequent basis.
Table 1: Usage frequency by site (percentages)
Site / area
Proportion of respondents
Daily Weekly Monthly Less Often Never
Stocksbridge / Deepcar /
Wharncliffe Side 10% 13% 19% 37% 21%
Oughtibridge / Worrall 10% 13% 16% 38% 23%
Stannington 7% 10% 16% 40% 27%
Loxley 5% 9% 12% 39% 35%
Rivelin 4% 17% 27% 43% 9%
Bradfield 4% 24% 32% 34% 6%
Langsett 3% 11% 21% 46% 19%
Broomhead / More Hall 3% 10% 17% 39% 31%
Redmires / Wyming Brook 2% 9% 19% 45% 25%
Ewden 2% 10% 14% 41% 33%
Table 2: Total usage figures by site (highest 3 in bold)
Site / area
Number of respondents
Daily Weekly Monthly Less Often Total
Bradfield 32 187 247 268 734
Rivelin 32 128 206 328 694
Langsett 25 87 157 355 624
Stocksbridge / Deepcar /
Wharncliffe Side
78 101 150 283 612
Oughtibridge / Worrall 72 100 121 280 573
Redmires / Wyming Brook 13 69 141 330 553
Stannington 49 75 117 290 531
Broomhead / More Hall 20 72 124 291 507
Ewden 18 72 101 302 493
Loxley 36 61 90 276 463
21

The following graph helps to illustrate the usage patterns by site condensing the data into just three categories: regular, occasional usage and non-use.
How often do you use / visit any parts of the SLLP area for leisure or recreation
Bradfield
28%
66%
6%
Stocksbridge
23%
56%
21%
Rivelin
21%
70%
9%
Oughtibridge
23%
54%
23%
Stannington
17%
56%
27%
Daily / Weekly
Loxley
14%
51%
35%
Monthly / Less Often
Never
Langsett
14%
67%
19%
Redmires
11%
64%
25%
Ewden
12%
55%
33%
Broomhead
13%
56%
31%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
22

6.7. Types of usage
The graph below illustrates that various forms of walking and eating out are the most popular leisure
activities in the SLLP area. Walking more than two miles (68%), walking less than two miles (43%)
and dog walking (37%) are within the top five most popular activities. Eating / drinking out (45%) and
picnicking (28%) also also within the top five. Running (both road 19% and off-road / trail 26%) and
cycling (both road and off-road 22%) are also highly popular activities, with wildlife and bird
watching and history and heritage also popular. Respondents also cited using the area for: horse
riding (12%), climbing (6%), watersports (2%), fishing (2%) and motorised sports (1%).
What kinds of leisure and recreation have you used / visited
the SLLP areas for?
Horse riding
Jogging / running - roads
History / heritage / cultural visits
Wildlife / bird watching
Off-road cycling
Road cycling
Jogging / running - trails
Picnicking
Dog Walking
Walking less than 2 miles for leisure
Eating / drinking out
Walking more than 2 miles for leisure
119
178
179
206
213
214
252
268
357
411
426
648
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
The following graph considers participation in activities and usage of the Sheffield Lakeland area by
gender. This highlights clear differences in horse riding and cycling (both road and off road)
participation by gender.
23

What kinds of leisure and recreation have you used / visited
the SLLP areas for?
Horse riding
Jogging / running - roads
History / heritage / cultural visits
Wildlife / bird watching
Off-road cycling
Road cycling
Jogging / running - trails
Picnicking
Dog Walking
Walking less than 2 miles for…
Eating / drinking out
Walking more than 2 miles for…
Female
Male
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
The graph below illustrates that the latent demand (people who are interested) in activities that
they do not currently do is high for all activity types listed, particularly nature reserves. Overall 30%
of respondents stated that there were not interested in any of these activities, possible because they
are already doing them.
Are there areas within the SLLP that you havent used or
visited but you would like to do so?
Reservoirs for watersports / open water…
Moorland
Woodland
Wilderness areas
Reservoirs for walking
None of the above
Nature reserves
217
255
271
275
280
313
321
0 100 200 300 400
Latent demand (desire to participate) was also analysed by gender. Higher demand was noted by
women for water sports / open water swimming at reservoirs and nature reserves.
24

Are there areas within the SLLP that you havent used or
visited but you would like to do so?
Reservoirs for watersports / open water…
Moorland
Woodland
Female
Male
Wilderness areas
Reservoirs for walking
Nature reserves
None of the above
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
6.8. Barriers to usage
In terms of barriers to using the natural environment / local landscape, there is a clear distinction
between people who already access these areas who do not experience any barriers which prevent
them from doing so, and those which are affected by a lack of information / awareness and clarity
on where to go and what to do. The data identifies clear areas where the SLLP project could focus on
improving information and signage, along with other areas which require infrastructural
improvements (including a lack of suitable paths in some areas and transportation issues). The two
greatest barriers are related to a lack of information and understanding:
I don't know where to go - 283 (29%)
I'm not sure what I'm allowed to do there - 170 (17%)
What are the main things that stop you from visiting these
areas?
None of the above
Don't know where to go
Not sure what I'm allowed to do there
Lack of suitable places to go / suitable…
Poor access
Difficult to get to
Getting lost
Don't know what to do
Nobody to go with
Worried about safety / don't feel safe
My family aren't interested
I'm not interested
I don't feel welcome / I feel out of place
40
29
15
72
68
64
63
133
131
118
170
283
374
0 100 200 300 400
25

There are clear differences in the barriers faced to accessing the Sheffield Lakeland area between
men and women. Women reported experiencing more barriers than men overall (72% v's 53%).
There were also numerous barriers which women reported much more prominently than male
survey respondents; e.g. not knowing where to go (33% v's 20%), lack of suitable places to go /
suitable paths (15% v's 9%), fear of getting lost (10% v's 3%), having nobody to go with (8% v's 4%)
and concerns about safety / not feeling safe (9% v's 3%)
What are the main things that stop you from visiting these
areas?
None of the above
Don't know where to go
Not sure what I'm allowed to do there
Lack of suitable places to go / suitable paths
Poor access
Difficult to get to
Getting lost
Don't know what to do
Nobody to go with
Worried about safety / don't feel safe
My family aren't interested
I'm not interested
I don't feel welcome / I feel out of place
1%
3%
4%
3%
4%
3%
7%
9%
8%
10%
9%
12%
20%
15%
18%
15%
13%
28%
33%
Female
Male
47%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
The qualitative comments relating to barriers predominantly focus on a lack of bridleways for
mountain bikers and horse riders, a shortfall in car parking, a lack of public transport and the need
for improved advertising of walks and rides and better signage.
Further questions were asked which considered how barriers to access could be overcome to
improve and widen access to the SLLP area. Once again, improved information, signage and maps
and improved footpaths and facilities (particularly parking) were highlighted as priorities.
26

What would encourage you to visit or use the SLLP area?
Organised trips from my local community
More guidance on using the countryside
More visitor attractions
More family orientated activities
Better physical access
More / improved public transport
More local events for runs, walks, bike rides
More / improved cycle routes
Improved facilities
More / improved footpaths
More / improved parking
Better signage / maps
Better information on where to go and what to do
51
110
133
133
151
174
176
193
226
263
266
352
392
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Further analysis by gender shows a greater proportion of females suggesting ways which would
encourage them to visit / use the Sheffield Lakeland area. In particular there is an even greater call
for more / better information from women (45%) than from men (31%). There is also higher demand
for more family orientated activities and visitor attractions. There is a stronger need for more and
improved cycle routes from men, which is a factor of a higher number of male cyclists within the
survey sample.
27

What would encourage you to visit or use the SLLP area?
Organised trips from my local community 6%
4%
Female
More guidance on using the countryside
12%
Male
More / improved cycle routes
12%
28%
None of these
14%
20%
More visitor attractions
8%
16%
More family orientated activities
9%
16%
More / improved public transport
16%
Better physical access
17%
12%
More local events for runs, walks, bike rides
19%
15%
Improved facilities
16%
26%
More / improved footpaths
27%
More / improved parking
22%
29%
Better signage / maps
36%
32%
Better information on where to go and what to do
31%
45%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
6.9. Widening usage
Despite the increasingly prominence of smart phones and GPS devices, our survey question asking
which methods people commonly used to help plan their routes showed a mix of different methods
are still utilised. The age profile of survey respondents may also be a factor in the choice of route
planning methods. A further survey question also found that 178 people were potentially interested
in events / sessions relating to map reading and improving their navigational skills. It is evident from
the survey data that there are several factors relating to increasing confidence in people's abilities to
visit the local countryside that, if addressed, could have a positive impact on participation rates.
28

If you wanted to go for a walk, jog or ride somewhere new,
which would you use to help plan your route?
Nothing, I'd just go out and explore without maps
or anything
117
Taking smartphone / GPS with you
370
Knowledge of friends and family
387
Printed maps / info taken from home
438
Official maps, guides, leaflets etc.
460
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Analysis by gender found a much higher proportion of women utilising knowledge from friends and
family (45% v's 28%) and a correspondingly lower usage of information printed at home (39% v's
47%) and official information (44% v's 47%).
Respondents to ask to specify their additional areas of interest in terms of local heritage or outdoor
recreation based events. Overall demand was highest for heritage days, music events and familyfocused
activities. The data shows a high level of demand for a wide range of specific events in the
SLLP locality.
Are there any specific events relating to local heritage or
outdoor recreation that you or your family would be
interested in?
Challenges
Water-based events
136
137
Map reading / navigational skills
Art events
194
211
Sporting events
245
Family-focused events
Music events
Heritage days
279
294
313
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
29

Additional analysis by gender identified a greater desire for sporting events by men (28% v's 21%)
and a slightly higher proportion of women requesting heritage (33% v's 27%), music (31% v's 26%)
and family (29% v's 24%) events.
6.10. Valuing the landscape
Two final survey questions provide additional insight into how much the local countryside and
landscape is valued by its communities.
The data shows that 80% of survey respondents (749 people) described the local countryside /
landscape as "extremely important" to them, with a further 13% (125 people) describing it as
"important". A further 57 people (6%) described it as "somewhat important", with 7 people (less
than 1%) describing the local countryside as "not important" to them. There were minimal
differences between men and women valuing the countryside although men valued it slightly higher.
When compared with the Outdoor City survey data from 2014 (sample size 1945 respondents), the
importance of Sheffield's countryside and landscape was even greater - with 80% of respondents
describing the landscape as 'extremely important', compared to 67% in 2014.
90%
80%
70%
80%
67%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Extremely
Important
13%
24%
Important
6%
7%
Somewhat
Important
1% 2% 0%
Not Important Not important
at all
SLLP data
Outdoor City data
In addition to this, 387 survey respondents have provided their email addresses and expressed the
desire to receive further information about this project.
6.11 Illustrative qualitative comments:
Survey respondents
"Stocksbridge could and should be "The Gateway to Sheffield Lakeland". I am fairly new to this area, but I grew
up in The Lake District. Sheffield Lakeland has the potential to become another Lake District. An "Underbank
Loop" that doesn't require walking half a mile alongside the A616 would be brilliant for visitors and locals
requiring a gentler form of exercise".
"It would be nice to be able to do complete circuits of all dams/reservoirs".
30

"Some of the dams are beautiful and I would love to have access to picnic, but I can't as the paths are too
uneven".
"Along the river Loxley, from Malin Bridge to Damflask needs improved paths".
"Better multi user trails round the edge of reservoirs, and linking reservoirs together. Introduce multi user trails
along valley bottoms linking Sheffield out to the moors, plus a Moor top multi user trail to the west, onto which
all the valley bottom trails will link. Then people can link up these to form longer loops. All trails should be allweather
routes, suitable for families and leisure cyclists. Mountain bikers can use these routes to access more
technical, rough trails, but it's important the multi user trails are suitable for all weathers to encourage people
out of their cars".
"Off road cycle routes not well connected (especially with families in mind)".
Stakeholders:
"We would like to provide a link route adjacent to the A616 at the Langsett water treatment works. This will be
part of links the old railway route from Stocksbridge to the Reservoir embankment".
"One of the areas that would be good to see improved is the links from the larger estate houses i.e. Wentworth,
NCMM etc. There's potential to develop greater access that feeds onto the TPT from these tourism attractions
into the North of the area towards Penistone and Stocksbridge".
"Cut Gate (the route between Langsett and Howden Reservoirs, commonly known as the 'Bog of Doom') is
loved by mountain bikers, walkers, horse riders, fell runners and many more. But it’s fragile and struggling to
cope with the amount of use it gets. This is part of the Mend our Mountains project and is a priority for
Sheffield City Council too".
"I’d like to see multi-use routes prioritised – the creation of/upgrade to Bridleways where possible. To provide
a more inclusive (most categories of user – horse rider, cyclist, walker and disabled user) and better connected
network of paths within the SLLP area".
"Malin Bridge is a very important gateway as it has the tram, the park and ride and leads to either Rivelin or
Loxley. There is a total absence of orientation or interpretation. The footpath that heads up the Loxley is very
uninviting and there are a series of H section RSJs used to keep motorbikes out which could be replaced by
something eye-catching and arty as a 'Gateway to the Loxley'"
6.12 Summary
Over 1,000 people completed surveys to provide insight on how they use the local
landscape, barriers which usage and suggestions for improvements
The survey captured the views of 29 people who had never used / visited the local landscape
and a further 155 occasional users. This helps us to understand the landscape from the
perspective of people who are unfamiliar / not confident in accessing it, rather than just
existing regular users.
There was a clear difference between local sites with regular usage and sites which people
travelled to access on a less frequent (weekly or monthly) basis.
All types of walking and eating out were the most common activities within the SLLP area.
Running and cycling were highly popular activities, and a high number of people use the area
for wildlife and heritage / cultural visits.
31

People who currently use the area for recreation agree on the main attractions - access to
the reservoirs and river valleys for longer walks and various informal leisure activities.
In total, 80% of survey respondents described the local landscape as "extremely important"
to them. But there are barriers preventing people from using the area more frequently.
Almost a third of respondents said they needed more information about where to go, with
17% stating they don't know what they are allowed to do when they get there.
There is an even greater call for better / more information from women (45%) than from
men (31%).
Fewer users mentioned specific attributes such as local history, cultural heritage or wildlife
and nature; suggesting these features are not currently explained adequately to contribute
to people's enjoyment of the area.
The data confirmed that there is still a requirement for both paper-based and online
resources.
There is a high demand for family orientated activities and visitor attractions (particularly
from women). Activities such as open water swimming, watersports, heritage days and
music and sporting events were also commonly cited by respondents as things that they
would like to get involved in.
The emerging points include whether people know what to do or how to behave in the
countryside? And how people can be better supported to gain awareness and confidence to
address these barriers?
32

7. Site summaries and stakeholder views
This section summarises the views of stakeholders and secondary research findings concerning the
specific sites identified already as potential hubs or gateways to the SLLP area.
7.1 Langsett
The Langsett Barn area is owned and managed by Yorkshire Water and the Peak District National
Park Authority. Langsett Barn Car park and picnic site is set in beautiful woodland at the edge of
Langsett Reservoir. It is located directly off the A616 near the centre of Langsett on the boundary of
the Peak District National Park. There is a good sized tarmac car park, with a number of spaces
reserved for disabled people close to the building. However the capacity of this car park does not
meet the demand for it, especially at weekends (all year round!) and various local areas are used as
over spill parking (including the laybys adjacent to the A616 and car parking near to the Flouch).
Over the past ten years there have been numerous research reports profiling the visitors at Langsett
and aiming to understand both how the area is used and valued. The most recent (2016) found that
the majority of visitors (55%) travelled from 11-20 miles away to access the area, with only 19%
travelling less than 10 miles. Around one third of visitors were walking a wider circular route of the
area e.g. Delf Edge, North America, Mauk Royd, whilst 23% were walking a circular route around the
Reservoir and 20% were walking to Crookland Wood (far left on the map below).
33

Visitors to the area described how the landscape provides the following attributes, opportunities
and experiences:
Easy access for visitors and surrounding urban areas
Natural beauty, natural heritage, landscape character and landscapes
Opportunities for outdoor recreation and adventure
Sense of wildness and remoteness
Trees, woodlands, hedgerows, stone walls, field barns and other landscape features
Opportunities to experience tranquillity and quiet enjoyment
Clean air, earth and water
Opportunities to improve physical and emotional well-being
Importance of wildlife and the area’s unique biodiversity
Special values attached to the national park by surrounding urban communities
The flow of landscape character across and beyond the national park boundary.
"There is a need to prioritise local history and heritage information including the building of the dams".
As an engaged and supportive landowner, very open to enhancing and promoting recreational
opportunities, Yorkshire Water has undertaken numerous improvements and enhancements around
the site with more improvements planned. They are looking to develop a route on the south of the
reservoir linking Brook House and Thickwoods Lane for pedestrians and cyclists within the wood
(which helps to protect the SSSI moorland). Another key strategic development supported by
Yorkshire Water would be enhancement to the route of the Barnsley Boundary Walk, which runs
along the north of A616 from Stocksbridge to Langsett (using the old railway line) - this route is
already promoted by Barnsley Council. An improved link could create an excellent cycle link but the
project lacks additional funding to achieve this at present (and it is just outside the SLLP boundary).
34

The strategy for community access to the areas to enjoy the local landscape is to promote Langsett
as a recreational hub and to enhance Midhope as an area for quiet enjoyment and wildlife.
Langsett Midhope Underbank
The Langsett Complex Strategy
1. Langsett: Visit, enjoy, family, cycling, riding etc.
2. Underbank: Visit, outward bound, watersport, exciting.
3. Midhope: Visit, quiet enjoyment of the countryside.
A copy of the full plan '0556 SD-01 - Yorkshire Water - Langsett Masterplan v1 Draft 16.04.14.pdf'
may be accessible from Geoff Lomas, Yorkshire Water's Catchment and Recreation Manager on
request.
The development of a 'haven for nature' is subject to a separate SLLP bid. The intention is to create
35

a home for osprey and goshawk with low key access and interpretation and undertake a significant
habitat creation project as a flagship nature conservation element of the SLLP. The provision of a
hide or screen from the ‘Edge cliff’ would give great observation across the water wood and moor
after woodland management. Additional reviews and recommendations by Yorkshire Water are
illustrated on the map below.
Additional suggestions / recommendations for the Langsett area from survey respondents included
the request for "footpath access to link up with the TransPennine Trail". However the Yorkshire
Water strategy has been to create permissive routes rather than public rights of way.
There is also a large scale project planned, linked to the Mend our Mountains project, to undertake
improvements and protection on the Cut Gate route which starts near to Langsett. However the
total cost of this proposed work is around £200,000 and therefore it falls outside the scope and
resources of this project. There may however be an opportunity to match fund part of this work
which links strongly to the heritage features and to contribute to restoring and protecting this wellloved
asset. The survey data identified many respondents were in favour of improvements to the
Cut Gate route.
7.2 Redmires
The Redmires area has strong heritage connections relating to the building of the reservoirs as a
result of the cholera epidemic in the 1830s
(https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/dam/sheffield/docs/libraries-and-archives/archives-andlocal-studies/research/cholera%20study%20guide%20v1-6.pdf).
Redmires also has a wealth of
military history connected with the site's usage as a WW1 training ground - this includes evidence of
WW1 trenches and the area's only Prisoner of War camp. The middle reservoir is currently drained
which could offer the potential for improved habitat management.
A strong recommendation resulting from consultation with stakeholders was an extension to the
Redmires 'conduit' route north to Oaking Clough. This proposal has support from the Peak District
NPA and Sheffield City Council. The route is on `open country` access land, so access is allowed
36

under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act - as is much of the surrounding public land. There is
also a priority to protect wildlife on this site, as it provides important and protected habitats some of
the best in the SLLP area. There are a wide range of walks in the area that are publicised (for
example: https://www.ifootpath.com/display-ifootpath-walk?walkID=5535) but public awareness of
the site and interpretation information could be significantly improved.
Other proposed route enhancements in the area included better links between Redmires and the
cycle track at Lady Cannings (this is currently linked by permissive footpaths on SSSI moorland but
the terrain is very boggy and not ideally suited for mountain bikes or horse riding, plus it goes out of
the SLLP area). It is already possible to walk, cycle and horse ride between Redmires and Rivelin via
minor roads and public and permissive bridleways, so Sheffield City Council did not feel that there
was a need for further route enhancements between these two sites of interest. However there was
a request from stakeholder organisations to make this a branded route with improved promotion.
The old conduit path also extends from the reservoir back east to Crookes. However, some of this is
already a public footpath in some areas, and in other areas is in private ownership.
Further to this, crowd-funding has been underway to pay for the development of some specific
mountain bike trails in a section of woodland at Redmires. This is in a specifically zoned area and will
be carefully managed to protect nearby wildlife.
The Peak District NPA are keen to promote `Miles without Stiles` routes in the area (and the
northern conduit route above would be an `easy going trail), and stakeholders share aspirations for
Redmires to become a more accessible hub. This needs to include a zoning approach whereby
visitors are funnelled away from the most sensitive areas for wildlife protection (including habitat for
water voles).
A local walking champion expressed a desire for a new link from Redmires up to Brown Edge but
Sheffield City Council did not feel that this was possible / practical due to the area being SSSI, largely
wet underfoot / boggy through the Rud Hill area, and also the route would venture outside the SLLP
area. Brown Edge does have military heritage interest, but can already be explored as `open country`
for the few visitors who wish to cover the terrain.
Additionally, improvements to the Wyming Brook footpath (running towards Rivelin) were suggested
as desirable, however it is felt that this area needs to continue to provide a mixture of character and
challenge and not just 'polished' routes that do not reflect the area's wilderness or character. The
Peak District NPA have also requested the removal and upgrade of anti-vehicle structures to ensure
suitability for motorised buggies and all-terrain wheelchairs to support their `Miles without Stiles`
routes, along with some surfacing near to Rivelin car park.
7.3 Bradfield
The survey and consultation data clearly identified Bradfield as one of the most well-loved places
within the Lakelands area. There is a wealth of associated heritage including the Mott and Bailey
Castle at High Bradfield which dates from the 10 th century and an existing wildlife reserve managed
by Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust (Agden Bog). The area has two significant yet contrasting
reservoirs; Damflask and Agden. Both reservoirs are part of Sheffield's 'Outdoor City Run Routes'.
37

Damflask is very well known and heavily used by walkers and runners (and a resident sailing club)
and Agden is a wilder area, known better as a place for quiet enjoyment. One of Sheffield City
Council's proposals was to upgrade to public footpath around the reservoir as a bridleway, however
this proposal has met with opposition from other users and the landowner. The value for money
generated by undertaking this work and the subsequent maintenance requirements also present a
concern. There is some potential for the top of Agden to be promoted as an accessible route (but
not `Miles without Stiles`) subject to improved car parking.
Local advocacy and support organisation Bradfield Walkers are Welcome are a fundamental part of
the local community and should be central to any decisions about improvements or changes within
the Bradfield area.
In 2015 Sheffield City Council were awarded funding from England Athletics to develop a series of
run routes as part of Sheffield's 'Outdoor City' vision. Bradfield was selected as one of the places to
install run route signage offering several route options with an easier blue 5km route around
Damflask and a more challenging 10km loop which also incorporates Agden. The data collected
through the run route monitoring found that the Bradfield route had the highest instance of travel
by car. Runners expressed that they felt safe and welcome using the route. Overall 55% of runners
and 17% of non-runners cited that the introduction of the route might encourage them to start using
it / use it more for running.
The area has an existing tradition of being used for local events including the Percy Pud 10km run,
the Bradfield relays and road cycling races - along with other art, cultural and heritage events. There
38

is a demand for more closed road events and to enhance the offer in the area, although the capacity
for car parking and relatively limited public transport serving the key villages is a barrier to capacity.
7.4 Loxley Valley
Malin Bridge is a significant gateway / major access point within the SLLP area as it links the 'city'
with the reservoirs and moorlands. It has supertram stop and an adjacent park and ride and provides
access to both the Rivelin and Loxley areas. There is a total absence of orientation or interpretation
within Malin Bridge. However there are significant industrial heritage features in the area as it links
into the Loxley and Rivelin Valleys.
The footpath that heads up the Loxley Valley (from Malin Bridge) is very uninviting. The area itself
provides access to a series of industrial heritage features including including weirs, mill ponds/dams,
and goyts. Alongside the path are numerous features of interest including Little Matlock (a smallscale
steel-rolling mill) however these assets are not promoted or well signed. Furthermore, there
are a series of H section RSJs used to keep motorbikes out which are unwelcoming and off-putting to
visitors. These could be replaced by something more appropriate which reflects the significance of
the route as a gateway to the wider natural landscape. There are a number of local groups or schools
that could potentially be engaged and inspired to provide art or cultural assets. The path alongside
the River Loxley has seen some recent improvements undertaken by Sheffield City Council over the
past couple of years, however there are additional sections that would benefit from physical
improvements.
A key principle of the SLLP project is to work in partnership with local groups and individuals and to
undertake projects collaboratively, to eliminate any duplication and add value by connecting up
projects. It is therefore important to note that there are a number of significant local groups in the
Loxley area that have been involved in producing plans for the area and are actively involved in its
maintenance and development. One such example is the Loxley Valley Design Statement produced
in 2003 http://resources.peakdistrict.gov.uk/ctte/policy/reports/2004/040206item6-5App1.pdf by
the Loxley Protection Society which provides an outline of the key priorities for the area and offers
planning guidance regarding how the community wanted to see the area to evolve. Much of the
content remains extremely relevant to the present day. David Holmes is a key local advocate who
was involved in the production of the statement and he has now been invited along to SLLP events
to strengthen this connection. The Upper Don Tributaries Joint Study from 1988 also highlights many
aspirations and proposals that are still relevant for enhancing and protecting the SLLP area.
Wadsley and Loxley Common is a 100 acre 'Local Nature Reserve' within the area. It is a mix of
heathland and birch woodland, with sandy gritstone outcrops, and signs of earlier quarrying. There is
a network of footpaths with some bridleways and the common is well used for recreation with a
good mix of easily accessible and surfaced paths and quiet unspoilt paths. The Wadsley and Loxley
Commoners is an organisation formed to protect and enhance the area known as Loxley and
Wadsley Commons. It is vital to involve this voluntary organisation with any plans in the area. There
is a suggestion that improving connections between the Common and Our Cow Molly (a local dairy
enterprise) would be desirable.
39

The survey data expressed a desire for increased public transport and improved accessibility to
sustainable transport to reduce car usage in the Loxley Valley and up into Bradfield. There have been
suggestions of closed road cycling events which could include participatory events such as the HSBC
`go ride` scheme in the city centre, in addition to performance-related events which showcase the
fact that the area offers exceptional opportunities for road cycling. Improvements to the bus service
up into the Loxley Valley were also highlighted as desirable - both for linking residential areas in the
valley with the super tram service and for transporting visitors into Loxley, Bradfield and surrounding
areas. A significant untapped resource is the 'Hepworth' (formerly Boris, Dyson) site which is a
derelict factory which offers huge potential to develop a resource centre or environmental or
heritage hub. There is a strong desire to support such a resource in this area.
7.5 Rivelin Valley
Rivelin Valley is an important access and heritage route in the SLLP area. Like the Loxley Valley, it can
also be easily accessed from the Malin Bridge gateway and transport network. As noted above, there
is a total absence of orientation or interpretation within the Malin Bridge area, despite its heritage
features. The consultation undertaken highlighted this area as a priority in terms of gateway
enhancements and potential route improvements, however it is recognised that the Rivelin
Conservation Group are already in consultation with the city council and are preparing a separate
project for the LCAP under the 'supporting local groups' programme. The group are already active in
carrying out repairs to footpaths, installing benches, clearing the waterways and cutting small trees
back. The group see potential for the SLLP to "allow us to make a much more significant
improvement to the Rivelin Valley public access and maintenance and protection of the remaining
heritage and waterways". As a result any proposed route developments or improvements in the
area need to be done in partnership with this pivotal voluntary group.
Existing resources to support any proposed development work in this area includes the
Loxley/Rivelin Country Walk (circa 1985) which contains excellent 'heritage' content which could be
replicated and a route which could be extended or shortened with access to public transport.
40

One of the Outdoor City run routes was also installed at Rivelin in 2016. Run shop 'Accelerate' also
established a run club to organise weekly runs from the Rivelin café.
"Water from the Rivelin Valley once
powered the local steel and cutlery
industries. Waterfalls, dams and
other remnants of this history dot
these running routes, in a beautiful
area that’s now been reclaimed by
nature".
7.6 Stocksbridge
Photo credit: Gemma Thorpe
Stocksbridge has the largest residential population of any part of the Sheffield Lakeland area (c.
16,000 people), and therefore is a significant gateway site to enable local people to access the
surrounding landscape. Stocksbridge Community Leisure Centre, managed by a community trust
(4SLC), was built on land donated to the local community by Thomas Oxley and is a treasured
community asset. The leisure centre is a hub for physical activity and sport in the area and offers a
41

wide range of opportunities, however the adjacent parkland (Oxley Park) is not managed or
maintained and as such is underused. In 2017 University of Sheffield students did a 'live project'
http://www.liveprojects.org/2017/stocksbridge-live-project/ focused on assessing the potential of
Oxley Park and developing a vision for its future. A partnership approach between 4SLC, Dransfield
Properties (owners of the Fox Valley), Well North, the Steel Valley Project, Sheffield City Council is
underway to capitalise on opportunities, such as the installation of a 'run route', wildlife projects and
other links to local SLLP projects.
'Fox Valley' is a master planned redevelopment of a 28 acre former steelworks site, bringing a new
town centre to North Sheffield. The £50million development, delivered by South Yorkshire based
Dransfield Properties Ltd, has been designed to reflect the area’s rich industrial heritage as well as
providing a new retail and commercial heart in this growing catchment. In addition to a range of
shops and services, Fox Valley also includes new office space and a new housing development with
118 riverside homes. Due to the catchment area of users and the prominence of the site within the
Sheffield Lakeland area, along with the strong heritage connections, numerous stakeholders have
suggested that Fox Valley should be promoted as a major gateway site, accompanied by information,
signage and interpretation. The site is also adjacent to the Little Don Trail that has been developed
to provide a safe, off-road walking and cycling route. Phase two of this project is currently underway
Local voluntary organisation 'Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome' are a key group to promote local
routes and to involve in any further consultation. The group (www.stocksbridge-walkers.org.uk)
provides a valuable community resource in providing detailed, step by step instructions which are
printer friendly or can be downloaded onto GPX systems. There are currently more than 30-40
walks on their website, with more to be added soon. There have been suggestions to create a
walking forum (and / or an `app`) within the Lakelands area to provide a joined-up approach, the
group has offered support with this process. The group also expressed a need for a 'lovely park' -
with its own characteristics and assets.
A key asset which is highly valued within the Stocksbridge area is Underbank reservoir. In recent
years, Yorkshire Water have made significant improvements to the path around part of this
reservoir, however this does not go all the way around (despite demand for this). As part of
Yorkshire Water's zoned approach, this reservoir is designated for sport and is well used by the Peak
Pursuits Outdoor Activity Centre and other water sports clubs. However there is no open water
swimming (something which there is high demand for) and there is limited individual / non-club
usage of the water for activities. Suggestions for route improvements in this area were dominated
by the desire for a walkable loop and also an improved link from Underbank to Langsett.
7.7 Broomhead, More Hall and Ewden Valley
Broomhead and More Hall are also prominent reservoirs in the area. Sheffield City Council put
forward a proposal on behalf of the equine community to change the status of the route from
Dwarriden Lane to New Road in line with their policy to upgrade the status of footpaths to
bridleways when appropriate to do so. Yorkshire Water has recently re-surfaced 1.5km of track at
More Hall which is now wheelchair and pushchair friendly and has opened up access to the wider
population https://www.yorkshirewater.com/about-us/newsroom-media/more-hall-reservoirimprovements.
In contrast to More Hall's policy of promoting access, Broomhead is more 'rugged'
42

with no further development work planned. The area also offers routes into the surrounding
Moorland. The question of designating the adjacent road as a 'quiet road' was asked, however….
Ewden was also highlighted as a special site within the area and something of an "unknown gem". It
has a well-researched history and there is much to be learned about how the building of the
reservoirs (Broomhead and More Hall) influenced the area (e.g. Chris Prescott, 2013, "Lost Farms of
Ewden"). There may be the potential for enhancements although infrastructural and capacity
considerations would need to be reviewed in consultation with key local people. In particular access
from Ewden Valley up to the watershed was expressed as desirable as are the routes up onto
Whitwell Moor.
7.8 Strines
Various suggested improvements were made for the Strines reservoir area, which is noted to have
great heritage assets. Enhancement of the Boots Folly Footpath (linking to the Sheffield Country
Walk) and improved links across the reservoir were requested, along with links from Holdworth to
Bradfield, the Old Keepers' track, Mortimer Road (including improvements to the designated parking
bay and the desire for previous parking to be reinstated) and the track from Sugworth Hall down to
Bent's Farm. The Peak District National Park Authority was also keen to see improved links and
interpretation to the Strines Tower. It was felt that this could be a key area for family discovery but
that many people would be put off from exploring due to a lack of confidence and information on
where to go and what to do. However Yorkshire Water are not keen on encouraging increased usage
of the area due to their desire for it to be an area for quiet enjoyment and also access issues / a
shortfall in parking in the area. There could be an opportunity to undertake led walks in the area
from the Strines pub but this also has limited car parking so questions regarding the capacity of the
area were raised. For these reasons it was decided not to prioritise this as an area for improvement.
7.9 Specific user requirements (horse riders, cyclists and improving accessibility)
In addition to the area-specific considerations above, it is important to note that several key user
groups although have expressed aspirations for enhancements within the SLLP area.
The British Horse Society (BHS) would like to see multi-use routes prioritised and the creation
of/upgrade to bridleways where possible. This would help to make the area more inclusive (allowing
more categories of user – horse riders, cyclists, walkers and disabled users and those with access
needs) and could create better connected network of paths within the SLLP area. There is a
separate project that will contribute to this vision by identifying routes that, historically, carried a
higher status. To achieve a better connected network for as many categories of user as possible, it
will be necessary to consult with landowners and users (both through recognised user groups and
independent users, and the Local Access Forums in Sheffield and the Peak District).
Other aspects to investigate include parking facilities, not just for cars, but also for horse
transport. "It’s not much use having a good network of circular rides, as at Langsett, if there’s
nowhere to park a horse box or if the surrounding road network is such that it’s not safe to ride or
cycle to it, again, as at Langsett". It would also be useful to identify where the higher category
routes are and look at how to link them up to create circular routes of varying distances inclusive of
parking provision and other ‘desirable’ facilities. There is an aspiration from the equine community
43

to create a Sheffield Lakelands Landscape circular ride that takes in most of the SLLP area, with
shorter distance circular or loop rides branching from it, as a ‘legacy’ for the SLLP project.
It should also be noted that the advocacy group Ride Sheffield are an important local stakeholder
and represent a large community of cyclists (predominantly mountain bikers). There was also
demand from the mountain biking community for better connections between areas to ride and for
more defined loops around the SLLP. In addition to this, British Cycling also highlighted the need for
flat, easy and accessible local rides that will help beginners to learn to cycle, or will help with
developing the confidence of existing cyclists. Sheffield has two designated coaches to help to
develop cycling proficiency within the city and the new opportunities created by Sheffield's bike hire
scheme 'ofo' may also increase the demand for safe and traffic free cycling opportunities.
CPRE South Yorkshire is a campaigning group that also has aspirations for improvements to routes
in the SLLP area to make them more accessible. In 2017, a new Peak District Boundary Walk was
introduced which is a 190 mile circular walk covering 192 miles mainly using existing paths, tracks
and quiet lanes. CPRE has aspirations to make sections of this route more accessible and stages 8
and 9 of the walk pass through much of the SLLP area. In February 2018, training via Accessible
Derbyshire will commence to support up to twenty people to undertake access audits along the
route. Surveying will begin after Easter and there will be specific route recommendations made by
October 2018 regarding improving and promoting accessible areas of the route.
There are existing resources e.g. the mapping of routes in the SLLP area that are wheelchair friendly
by Bradfield Walkers are Welcome (2011) that can be built upon (http://www.bradfieldwalkers.org.uk/PDF/Wheely%20easy%20walks%20leaflet.pdf).
The National Park Authority's
branding of `Miles without Stiles` also provides consistency in terms of how local routes can be
developed and promoted. Sue Smith from the Peak District National Park Authority has aspirations
to further develop routes within the SLLP to improve accessibility and the first batch of `Miles
without Stiles` routes will be launched in April 2018. These are accessible routes for all to enjoy
which showcase the special qualities of the National Park. In the SLLP this covers routes which
connect with communities and gateways to the National Park. These are predominantly at: Langsett,
Damflask, the Redmires Conduit, and Morehall and Broomhead. These routes are already in place
and in some cases are highlighted as easy going trails. There are further possible routes and
extensions in the area subject to the agreement of landowners, consents and funding.
44

8. Our recommendations to enhance enjoyment of the area's heritage and
reconnect local people and visitors to the landscape
Our discussions with stakeholders (a full list is provided in Appendix 5) and information from the
survey have confirmed that the main way of improving access to the area's landscape, cultural and
natural heritage, would be through a range of actions. Our proposals include a community based
project to capture and utilise existing knowledge about local heritage; increased information and
interpretation provision; and some limited access improvements.
8.1 Visibility
There is a need for a common vision for how we do things across the SLLP area - including an agreed
code of conduct and shared standards. There is also a strong need for greater visibility. This would
help to improve awareness - and create an overall `presence` for the Sheffield Lakeland area.
Improvements to sustainable transport options are also needed. There is a strong demand for
improvements to public transport but also for a better cycling infrastructure. It is interesting to note
that the recently introduced ofo bikes in Sheffield https://www.ofo.com/uk/en (1,000 dockless bikes
available for public use) can be ridden within the SLLP area but must be brought back and left within
a designated 'geo-fenced' area, which all of the Sheffield Lakeland area sits outside. A later phase of
the project hopes to increase this range which might enable to some or all of SLLP area to be
included.
Another way to create a presence would be for the SLLP to create an event legacy. There are several
suggestions that were made during our consultation process including a 'soap box race' from Our
Cow Molly (suggested by the owner of this business) and Crossfit Sheffield are looking into venues
capable of hosting a large scale obstacle course race or Crossfit style competition. Yorkshire Water is
also keen to promote events in the area and to build capacity and broaden the existing offer. There
is a current portfolio of local annual events such as the popular Percy Pud 10k, the Bradfield Relays
around Damflask, runs at Broomhead, Langsett and Hunshelf and local cycle races (in Bradfield and
Stocksbridge). There is an existing infrastructure for managing these events and keen clubs,
organisations and individuals that may provide support.
A strong recommendation would be to create a walks / activities portal or app. Stocksbridge Walkers
are Welcome www.stocksbridge-walkers.org.uk) has offered to support this development and there
are existing examples of good practice e.g. https://www.walkderbyshire.co.uk/ DerbyshireWalking:
About.
8.2 A Community based `Hidden Histories` project
The aim of this project is to capture and unlock the knowledge already available through many local
community groups and specific individuals, to enhance our understanding of the local area and
contribute to better information and interpretation provision throughout the area. The project
would work with existing local groups and experts, and encourage the involvement of other
community groups (including schools and youth groups) to provide a basis for increased
45

interpretation and enjoyment of the local landscape. Several heritage themes have already arisen
from our research:
A. EARLY MAN'S IMPRINTS ON THE LANDSCAPE - There is considerable evidence (in local records,
local archaeological collections, and still held in local history societies) of the use of the area
from the Mesolithic age, onwards through the Bronze Age, and both pre and post Roman
settlement. There also exist some interesting links to early stories and myths in the area as well.
Bar Dike earth work, Low Bradfield - possibly a tribal boundary
from the so-called `Dark Ages` (photo - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Bradfield).
Reginald Gatty, Reverend at Bradfield in the 1880s, developed an extensive collection of
Mesolithic `Stone Age` flint tools from c. 10,000 B.C., as the ice ages left and the environment
turned from tundra to forest (Melvyn Jones, 2013, "The Making of Sheffield"). The earliest
historical sign of settlement in the Bradfield area is an early to mid-Bronze Age ring cairn on
Broomhead Moors, three miles to the northwest of Low Bradfield. This is believed to be a ritual
or burial site from over 4,000 years ago. On the ridge between Bradfield Dale and the Ewden
Valley is the Bar Dike, a 492 yards long trench with a rampart on its southern side which is 10
feet high in places. The dike is believed to have marked the boundary between different Dark
Ages tribes in the period following the withdrawal of The Romans from Britain.
B. HERITAGE HIGHWAYS - The SLLP area is criss-crossed with old routes once used by many
different communities and once vital to the local economy. There is good evidence of the
development of tracks across the area by monks (for example at Beauchief Abbey in the 12 th
century). Ancient bridleways, and subsequently tracks developed as packhorse trails for trade
and industry, followed. The development of turnpike routes in the 18 th century and the impact
of the Enclosure Awards continues the story, through to the campaigns for public access for
recreation - both for public rights of way (achieved in 1949) and for the `right to roam` across
uncultivated land (achieved much later in 2002). This takes the story right through to the 21 st
century, linking with new leisure routes such as the 2014 Tour de France cycling routes, and
other long distance trails.
46

The Long Causeway, an old medieval packhorse track extending from Sheffield, via Redmires, to
Stanage Edge (photo - http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/learning-about/news/archive/2016-pressreleases/news/5k-boost-to-miles-without-stiles
)
Tour de France signpost, with the `traditional` yellow bicycle, Low Bradfield
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tour_de_France_signpost_in_Low_Bradfield_-
_geograph.org.uk_-_4059206.jpg).
C. HARNESSING THE POWER OF WATER - The fast flowing rivers rising off the moors and tumbling
down the steep sided valleys in to the city of Sheffield powered the early years of the industrial
revolution (along with the use of local woodlands for timber and charcoal) in Sheffield. The
47

eservoirs developed in the 19 th century are tremendous feats of Victorian engineering, with
their own stories of triumph and disaster (e.g. the Great Sheffield Flood), as well making their
own major contribution to the landscape. The area remains a mix of moorland and farmland,
with heavy industry and extractive industries still evident in the valleys - so the links from preindustrial
revolution to our modern age are significant.
Devastation caused by the Great Sheffield Flood, 1864 (photo -
https://www.welovesheffield.uk/magazine/history-nostalgia/37-remembering-the-greatsheffield-flood.html)
Damflask Reservoir (photo - by Woodytyke on Flickr -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/45777493@N06/8063774223)
Connections could also be made under this theme with current concerns over water catchment
management, particularly some of the natural flood management interventions being explored
by the SLLP project. As well as the technical research necessary to undertake and monitor these
interventions, the local expertise and knowledge of farmers, land managers and local residents
will be a crucial part of this story.
48

D. MILITARY HERITAGE - The story of the Sheffield City `Pals` Battalion, based at the Redmires
Camp at Lodge Moor, and the terrible losses they suffered during the Somme offensive in the
First World War, is well known. The Battalion used land at Brown Edge, above Redmires
Reservoir, for trench warfare training exercises and the remains of those excavations can still be
seen (Helen Ullathorne, 2006 http://www.pals.org.uk/sheffield/redmires.pdf) . There was also a
prisoner of war camp next to the training camp, and this was extended still further in the Second
World War. Many prisoners (particularly Italian prisoners) stayed in Sheffield after the WWII,
marrying into the local community.
49

Aerial photo of Quarry Hill showing excavations (source - Helen Ullathorne, 2006 -
http://www.pals.org.uk/sheffield/redmires.pdf )
In addition to these themes, identified by several different groups and individuals, we have also had
mentioned to us the possibility of focusing on themes around the `lost farms` of the area; forestry
and woodland management; music and art in the area; and local myths and stories. All of which
might bear further research.
8.3 An Information and Interpretation Project
Our analysis of existing promoted recreational routes in the SLLP area (provided in Appendix 1)
demonstrates that the area is not without a range of suggested trails for walkers, runners, horse
riders and cyclists, promoted by both local groups and national organisations. However, a recurring
comment in our primary data collection was that people still don't know where to go or what they
are allowed to do in the area. In view of this, we recommend a specific project to provide additional
information and interpretation about the cultural and natural heritage of the area. This project
should build on the Hidden Histories project described above and biodiversity assessments.
Importantly, this project should reinforce the sense of place and local distinctiveness of the SLLP
area for local residents and visitors alike.
Information and interpretation provision does not necessarily mean additional signs and
infrastructure in the landscape (although some sensitive signage at the main hubs, gateways and on
some trails would be appropriate). We recommend that interpretive material is also provided in
both paper copy and online, or through the use of digital technologies. Specific costed options are
required to support this.
We would recommend such provision is focused in the following areas:
A. VISITOR HUBS - these sites already possess reasonable car-parking infrastructure and access to
other facilities such as toilets and refreshment facilities. Further signage and information provision
50

for visitors, and promotional activities (potentially online) should use these sites as a basis for
enhancement
Langsett reservoir
Bradfield - the village - associated with Damflask and Agden reservoirs
Redmires reservoir
B. COMMUNITY GATEWAYS - In order to maximise sustainable and `every day` use by local people,
access points leading straight from people live, should be promoted and enhanced. We recommend
improved `welcome` signs, better information about public transport, and more information about
exploring further along the valleys and beyond. The key strategic sites should include:
Stocksbridge - access points to the south west of the town, linking in with longer routes
along the Little Don Valley, and enhancing links to the Fox Glen Wood project, would
enhance this community gateway. Fox Valley should be considered as one of two
branded and promoted "Welcome to Sheffield Lakeland" sites with the appropriate
support infrastructure / information to enable people to quickly and easily access the
local landscape. Collaborative working with local organisations including the Steel Valley
Project and Stocksbridge Leisure Centre would be advantageous.
Loxley and Wadsley Common - a well-used site, but requiring some updating and new
management to link more firmly to the SLLP project.
Malin Bridge - accessing both the Rivelin and the Loxley Valleys from the inner city
communities of Hillsborough and adjoining neighbourhoods.
8.4 Enhancing access for a wider range of people (a full map is available in Appendix 2)
These specific proposals follow consultation with the highways authority, Sheffield City Council,
and the Peak District National Park Authority, as well as taking into account proposals from local
stakeholders and suggestions from the user survey. A very wide range of recreational
improvements were suggested - far too many to be incorporated into the current project. So a
prioritisation exercise was undertaken (provided in Appendix 6) in order to focus on those routes
of particular significance to the overall project's aims of enhancing access to local and natural
heritage for a wider range of people. These are all relatively short routes, but form important
strategic links which contribute to: joining gaps in the network, allowing use by new user groups,
or are new developments to existing sites of cultural and natural heritage interest. The
recommendations combine heritage routes which show the development of access and set out
the history of the area, with access improvements. These proposals have been categorised into
three groups: supported and recommended improvements, potential improvements for further
consideration and requested routes without support.
A. Supported and recommended improvements
Redmires Conduit extension - Redmires is a remarkable area for local heritage, which offers
unique insight into local military history. The Conduit is in Yorkshire Water’s ownership and
support of the adjacent landowner would be sought. Specifications are required for surfacing,
gates and a bench at the reservoir and fencing as necessary for the dam wall. Promotion of this
51

oute as an `easy going trail` would increase accessibility for all users (including people with
disabilities) from Redmires reservoir along the old Conduit to the small dam in Oakling Clough.
There is also scope for improvements from the reservoir on to Brown Edge, to allow people to
explore the former trench warfare training area, and within the woodland further down
Redmires Road on the former POW site.
Map 11: Proposed routes at Redmires Conduit and Wyming Brook Footpath
Wyming Brook footpath - Wyming Brook Nature Reserve lies close to Redmires Reservoir and is
owned by Sheffield City Council, but managed under lease by Sheffield Wildlife Trust. The route
along the beck is a public footpath, but needs improvement in order to sustain enhanced access
to this important site.
Loxley Valley - The gateway from Malin Bridge to the Loxley Valley is of huge significance. The
Steel Valley Project is currently undertaking condition surveying on this route and specific
recommendations are forthcoming.
Rivelin Valley - Working in partnership with the Rivelin Valley Conservation Group it is suggested
that minor route upgrades are undertaken to enhance access around the area and, in particular,
to improve information, awareness and interpretation.
52

Map 12: Proposed route improvements Rivelin and Loxley Valley (Keith we need the latest SLLP
map layer!)
B. Potential improvements for further consideration
Cut Gate ancient bridleway - The area known as `North America`, near Langsett, requires
essential improvement work to ensure sustainable use of the important route by mountain
bikers and horse riders. The route was used and repaired for Derwent woodland farmers to ride
to Penistone market. It has been promoted by horse riders as part of the Kinder Loop. Effective
use of funds could be maximised by combining with other funding raising activities in
partnership with the Moors for the Future partnership. The route was also identified as part of
the Mend our Mountains fundraising campaign commencing in spring 2018.
C. Requested routes without support
Agden Reservoir Circular Bridleway - Sheffield City Council and the British Horse Society both
support an upgrade of status in the path around Agden reservoir to a bridleway. The creation of a
new route would enable horse riders to complete a loop around this popular reservoir. This route
could be combined with other work associated with more effective catchment management in
the area. However the proposal is not universally supported and faces opposition both from the
Peak District National Park Authority (due to the impacts on disabled users) and the general
public (due to the designation of Agden as a place for quiet enjoyment. Upgrading the status to a
53

idleway would improve the access for specific user groups but would not widen access to
heritage for the wider public.
Boot's Folly link, Strines - An important view point on the Sheffield Country Walk, but requiring
significant improvement work to sustain access to this cultural landmark. Boot's Folly stands high
on the south flanks of the Strines reservoir. Constructed in 1927 by Charles Boot who resided at
nearby Sugworth Hall, possibly to provide work for Sugworth Hall’s workmen during The
Depression. There is also a theory, however, that Boot built the tower (a major landmark in this
area) so he could see High Bradfield churchyard where his wife, who had died in 1926, aged 56,
was buried. The Folly gives fine views of the reservoir and Bradfield Dale ("Around Bradfield,
Loxley and Hillsborough - The Second Selection", by Malcolm Nunn, 1997). The Strines Inn was
built to cater for the new wheeled traffic as a result of the bridleway becoming a turnpike in
1771. Demand has been expressed for the following: improved access in the area and links to the
tower – new public rights of way to link in with access land, new access points on access land,
new access land dedications, concession path across the dam wall, upgrading and extension of
concession path through Bole Edge Plantation and the reinstatement of car parking at Foulstone
Road. Work on this route could also be combined with catchment management work on this
moor. Support for these proposals from the landowner, Yorkshire Water, however are not
forthcoming as they do not wish to open up more access to Strines and feel that sufficient access
is already in place via the PRoW linking Brogging to the Sheffield Country Walk.
8.5 Supporting emerging developments
In light of the aspirations of the Rivelin Valley Conservation Group, Loxley Protection Society and the
current CPRE route assessments, it is recommended that a pot of around £15,000 is ring fenced to
enable to project to be responsive to opportunities that emerge within the next six months.
8.6 Concluding comments
The usage data analysed for this report shows that the SLLP area has traditionally been less visited
than the western and southern parts of Sheffield. However with open access, proactive local
organisations and supportive landowners this is starting to change. A key feature of the survey data
was the lack of awareness of what to do and where to go in the SLLP area. Despite some excellent
information being produced by local advocacy groups, awareness of opportunities and
understanding of the local heritage features seems surprisingly low. The survey data also confirmed
that people still want a combination of paper and online information and resources.
The SLLP project presents a great opportunity to grow awareness and appreciation of the
uniqueness of this area. It is extremely well-loved by some but under-utilised by others. Increasing
information and understanding also provides the opportunity for education on the need for the
protection (and celebration) of the local landscape, it’s wildlife and heritage assets.
Maxine Gregory
Prof. Lynn Crowe
Prof. Ian Rotherham
54

PROMOTED RECREATIONAL ROUTES IN THE SHEFFIELD LAKELAND
LANDSCAPE PARTNERSHIP AREA
This list of promoted recreational routes in the SLLP area was obtained through an
on-line search of local web sites.
A. OUTDOOR CITY ROUTES - http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/
1. Run routes -
a. Bradfield to Dam Flask (http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/bradfield-damflask/ )
Start: The Sands car park, S6 6LB.
Distance: 5km / 10km. - Difficulty: Medium / Hard.
Around reservoirs Dam Flask and Agden.
Route map - http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/site/assets/files/1988/a4_run_guidebradfield_mix.pdf
.
b. Rivelin Valley (http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/rivelin-valley/ )
Start: Rivelin Park Cafe, S6 5GE.
Distance: 2.1km / 3.7km. Difficulty: Easy / medium.
Route Map - http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/site/assets/files/2699/a4_run_guiderivelin.pdf
2. Walk Routes -
a. Twin villages, reservoir views and a Norman fort on a 4 mile walk -
http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/bradfield-walk/
Distance: 4.3 miles. - Public transport: 61 or 62 bus.
Parking: Roadside parking near the Cricket Club, S6 6LA
Route map - https://www.walkingenglishman.com/peakdistrict22.html
b. Short reservoir walks in Low Bradfield - http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/reservoirwalks-in-low-bradfield/
. Public transport: 61 or 62 bus.
Parking: The Sands, S6 6LA (marked on map below).
c. Wilderness trails and waterfalls in Lodge Moor - http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/lodgemoor/
Start: Lodge Moor bus terminus, Redmires Road.
Distance: Trails range from 3 to 6 miles. Public transport: 51 bus. -
Parking: Redmires Road, or Yorkshire Water car park, south of Rivelin Dams.
3. Cycle Routes
a. Make a pit stop at the spotty café - http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/the-spotty-cafe/ -
Bank View Cafe turned polka dot in 2014, to welcome the Tour de France
peloton.
b. A jaunt from city to reservoir edge - http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/round-reservoirride/
- Damflask reservoir can be easily reached from the western reaches of
Sheffield, through the Rivelin and Loxley Valleys – a ride that perfectly captures
the city-country balance. You can continue through the moors and woodland to
call in on nearby reservoirs Agden, Dale Dike and Strines.

c. Conquer the original Tour de France hill climbs -
http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/conquer-the-original-tours-hill-climbs/
Start: A616, Midhopestones, S36.
Côte de Midhopestones - Length 2.4km / height gain 158m / average gradient
6.5% - The climb passes Ye Olde Mustard Pot Inn, out of Midhopestones, before
kinking to the right and steepening. The route continues onto Barnside Moor,
Ewden Heights, with views over Broomhead Reservoir and the moors. Then an
exhilarating downhill section to Ewden Beck, followed by a steep climb out of the
valley, towards Bradfield's moors, then drop into High Bradfield.
Côte de Bradfield - Length 0.94km / height gain 93m / average gradient 9.2% -
The route takes a left up onto Kirk Edge Road, topping out onto Kirk Edge,
before a long downhill into Worrall, a steep descent into Oughtibridge, and a
moment of flat over the River Don.
d. RADmires: crowdfunding a new trail for Sheffield -
http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/radmires/ - A new trail will open to the public at
Redmires reservoir by summer 2017. The trail will run alongside the byway up to
Stanage Pole from Redmires Road, descending for 1.8km. The route will be
mainly blue, but with red and potentially black level opt-ins.
4. Other Recreational Facilities -
a. Canoe Centres: Peak Pursuits – Underbank reservoir (www.peakpursuits.co.uk)
b. Sheffield Viking Sailing Club - Five miles west of central Sheffield, in the Loxley
Valley, on the 47 hectare Yorkshire Water-owned Damflask reservoir. The club
gets on the water on Sundays, as well as Thursday evenings during summer and
every other Saturday. Individual and family memberships are available.
(www.sheffieldviking.org.uk).
c. Wild swimming - River Rivelin, Rivelin Valley, provides a great running route and
green path out to the Peak District and is also home to one of the smaller, but just
as rewarding, swimming spots in the Sheffield area. A less wild experience exists
at the Rivelin Valley Water Play in Rivelin Valley Park.
d. Wheelchair walks - Damflask Reservoir - Located in the Peak District National
Park near the village of Low Bradfield, the Damflask walk on Jeff's Wheelchair
Walks website offers woodland and open country with wide views across the
reservoir. Also routes around Langsett Reservoir -
http://www.jeffswheelchairwalks.net/langsett.pdf
e. Climbing - Rivelin Edge: This is something of a connoisseur's crag. It lacks the
quantity of routes of Stanage, the height of Millstone or the views of Dovestones
Tor. It is small, but perfectly formed – charming and with a very special quality to
it. It is only just outside the city limits and makes an ideal venue for those in a
hurry.

B. BRADFIELD - WALKERS ARE WELCOME - http://www.bradfieldwalkers.org.uk/Walks/AgdenReservoir.html
Comprehensive list of walks around Bradfield and beyond. Excellent web site, and
sponsored by local pubs, cafes and other businesses. As part of Bradfield Parish
Council's Walks and Trails project a number of interpretation panels have been set up
around the area giving information about landmarks and local history. Maps are provided
for all these routes - sometimes alongside historical information and leaflets produced by
Bradfield Parish Council.
a. Low Bradfield
b. Two Villages
c. Langsett
d. Agden Reservoir
e. Damflask Reservoir
f. Onesmoor
g. Bradfield loop
h. Dungworth
i. Loxley Valley
j. Milestones
k. Ughill Moor
l. Dukes Road
m. Great Flood
n. Worrall
o. Holdworth
p. Stannington
q. Ughill Loop
r. Bradfield Boundary
C. VISIT PENISTONE -
http://www.visitpenistone.co.uk/letour/walks_near_langsett.html
Walks around Langsett and Penistone -
Many walks - but also mentioned in Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome -

D. STOCKSBRIDGE WALKERS ARE WELCOME - http://www.stocksbridgewalkers.org.uk/index.html
Short walks
S1 Underbank Underbank Reservoir and Wind Hill Farm 2 or 3 miles
S3 Whitwell Moor
From Stocksbridge Community Leisure Centre onto Whitwell
Moor
3.0 miles
S4
Ewden
Reservoirs
Walks around More Hall and Broomhead Reservoirs in the
Ewden Valley
2.2 - 4.6
miles
S5 Bramall Lane From the centre of Stocksbridge (Fox Valley) west along
Bramall Lane and back on Hunshelf Bank.
S7 Isle Of Skye From Stocksbridge centre (Fox Valley) up to the Isle of Skye
Quarry, returning by the Tin Mill ponds.
3.5 miles
4.5 miles
S8
Coumes
Wood
From Oughtibridge to Sensicall Park and the Coomes Vale
Plantation to Onesmoor before returning via Delf Hill.
4.5 miles
Medium Walks
M2 Beeley Woods and Worrall From Oughtibridge to Beeley Wood, Middlewood,
Worrall, Birtin Cemetery and Sensicall Park
M3 Langsett Reservoir A circuit of Langsett Reservoir taking in more than
the basic loop around the reservoir.
M5 Broomhead Moor From a stone circle to the top of Broomhead Moor
and back by Dukes Road and Wigtwizzle.
5.5 miles
5.6 miles
5.8 miles
M6
Bolsterstone/Wigtwizzle
Circular
From Bolsterstone, descend to the Ewden Valley
then climbs steeply to Rocher Farm before
descending to Broomhead Reservoir. Another
steep ascent brings us to Stone Moor and a loop
across fields back to Bolsterstone.
6.0 miles
M7 Dragon Circular From Parsonage Farm, into Townend Common,
past the Wantley Dragon, into ancient woodlands
and past the grave of a Saxon King, Walder’s
Low
M8 Hunshelf Bank From Underbank along the length of Hunshelf
Bank with panoramic views across to both the
Peak District and the Lower Don Valley.
M9 Wigtwizzle Bridleway A pair of walks in the Ewden valley linked by the
Wigtwizzle Bridleway
M10 Wind Hill From Bolstertone to Wind Hill and Underbank
Reservoir and back across open fields.
M11 Ewden Valley From Bolsterstone along to the main road before
returning op the Edwen Valley past two
reservoirs.
6.0 miles
6.0 miles
6.0 miles
6.3 miles
6.5 miles

M12 Glen Howe Park A linear walk from Stocksbridge Town Hall to
Glen Howe Park in Wharncliffe Side.
M13 Midhope Moor From Underbank across Midhope Moor and
Upper Midhope.
6.5 miles
6.5 miles
M15
Underbank Circular
Underbank Reservoir to Midhopestones. then
climb steeply by the old route of Mortimer Road
before return over Roughbirchworth Common.
6.5 miles
M16
Fox Valley
Starting in Deepcar, this walk of contrasts takes
you through woods, close to the River Don and
then up to Green Moor, along Hunshelf Bank and
back through Fox Valley.
7.0 miles
M17 Canyards From Bolsterstone across Ewden Valley to The
Canyards returning by Broomhead Reservoir
M21 Three Reservoirs Take in Underbank, Midhope and Langsett
reservoirs starting at Underbank
7.5 miles
8.0 miles
M22 Hades from Dunford Bridge
From the Trans Pennine Trail (TPT) car park at
Dunford Bridge, past Winscar Reservoir and into
the woods at Hades, returning over Snailsden
Moor
8.5 miles
M23 Langsett/Dunford Bridge From Langsett to Dunford Bridge along pack
horse routes, moorland and former railway tracks.
9.0 miles
Long Walks
L1 Pike Lowe The moorland peak of Pike Lowe from Langsett via
Midhope reservoir.
L2 Penistone From Stocksbridge to the market town of Penistone
via Langsett.
L3 Howden Edge From Langsett, a route leading to exposed moorland
on Howden Edge, returning along Cut Gate path.
L5 Le tour à pied This linear walk is approximately parallel to the route
taken by the Tour de France ('Le Tour'). We pick up
the route at Langsett, pass through Midhopestones,
ascend to both Barnside and Broomhead Moors and
skirt the Canyards before leaving the route at High
Bradfield.
10.0 miles
10.5 miles
11.0 miles
14.5 miles

E. STONE TO STEEL WALKS
These walks were developed by the Stone to Steel Project.
There are six walks in the Stocksbridge, Deepcar, Bolsterstone and Oughtibridge area. Walk
maps are available on the Stone to Steel web site. www.stonetosteel.org.uk/map.php (this
link not working). Steel Valley web site - https://steelvalleyproject.org/walks/
The Steel Valley Ride is a cycling event launching the Little Don Link multi-user trail in
Stocksbridge and the opening of a new bike shop and café- Full Gas Bikes. The funds raised
from the event will go to the Steel Valley Project, a countryside management charitywww.steelvalleyproject.org
- July 2016. The ride starts and finishes at Full Gas Bikes,
located in the new Fox Valley development in the centre of Stocksbridge, on the outskirts of
Sheffield. MTB Route– 31 miles of technical mountain biking.
F. PEAK DISTRICT BOUNDARY WALK -
Developed by CPRE/Friends of the Peak District and opened in 2017 -
http://www.friendsofthepeak.org.uk/boundary-walk/
A new 190 mile route around the whole PDNPA boundary. Stages 8 and 9 run through the
SLLP area. Apparently partially way-marked by local volunteers.
G. SHEFFIELD COUNTRY WALK -
https://www.walkingbritain.co.uk/walk-1479-introduction Burbage Moor & Redmires, Grade -
easy/mod, Length - 9.8 miles/15.8 km . (John Harker - revised 2016
https://www.ldwa.org.uk/ldp/members/show_publication.php?publication_id=1866 )
H. WALKS AROUND RESERVOIRS IN SOUTH YORKSHIRE -
Routes developed and promoted by Yorkshire Water
https://www.yorkshirewater.com/sites/default/files/downloads/Walks%20in%20South%20Yor
kshire.pdf
a. Agden (3.5 miles) - North-west of Low Bradfield, near Sheffield.
a. Dale Dike (2.5 miles) - West of Low Bradfield, near Sheffield.
b. Damflask (3.5 miles) (Easy access) - Near Low Bradfield situated to the north-west of
Sheffield.
c. Redmires (2.5 miles) - West of Lodge Moor situated to the west of Sheffield.
d. Langsett (3 miles) (Easy access 0.5 miles) - East of Stocksbridge on the A616.
e. More Hall (3.4 miles) - South of Stocksbridge

J. CUT GATE ROUTE - Langsett Reservoir to Slippery Stones, Upper Derwent
Reservoir
http://ridesheffield.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CutGatev8.pdf
http://www.mbr.co.uk/routes/northern-england/peak_district/cut-gate-peak-district-gps-routedownload-321377
This is an Important bridleway route for mountain bikes and horseriders running north-south,
mainly just outside the SLLP area - but important feeder link at Langsett. It also forms part of
the `Dark Peak ` route - a 44 mile circular route taking in most of the northern half of the
Peak District National Park (see - http://www.mbr.co.uk/routes/northern-england/dark-peakroute-355095
). Area in need of attention in the SLLP area - known as `North America`
(contact - Matt Buckler, Moors for the Future Project)
K. LITTLE DON CYCLE LINK
Another important link just outside the SLLP area - but an important regional long distance
route, particularly for cyclists and horse riders.
The Little Don Cycle Link is a joint project between Sheffield City Council, Barnsley
Metropolitan Borough Council, Derbyshire County Council and the PeakNational Park
Authority. The project will create a new off road cycle and pedestrian track linking northern
Sheffield into the Peak Park via Wharncliffe Woods, Deepcar, Stocksbridge and Langsett -
Sheffield City Council, October 2017. (http://www.cyclesheffield.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2017/10/17_03102_RG3-1155919.pdf).
The Little Don Link forms part of Sheffield City Council’s Green Routes Network programme.
It will provide a link for existing Stocksbridge and Deepcar residents towards both Langsett
and the Peak District, and into Wharncliffe Woods and onto the Trans Pennine Trail to either
head north to Penistone and beyond, or south to Sheffield.
L. TRANS PENNINE TRAIL - http://www.transpenninetrail.org.uk/
Another important link just outside the SLLP area - but an important regional long distance
route, particularly for cyclists and horse riders. Interactive map showing link along the Little
Don - https://www.google.com/maps/d/embed?mid=1-
0SaFkzQxV5EdtRuTJ5rKFt2IWI&ll=53.469925551983806%2C-1.512458008160138&z=12
M. PEAK HORSEPOWER RIDING ROUTES - http://www.peakhorsepower.co.uk/
An active local group working to improve bridleways in the PDNP. They promote several
long distance routes in the south of the Peak, and around Kinder, but nothing (yet) in the
SLLP area. However, they should be able to use the `Dark Peak` circular route promoted by
the mountain biking community (see Cut Gate route above).

SLLP 1 SLLP 2 SLLP 3 SLLP 4 GW1 GW2 GW3 GW4 Statement of Significance
Sheffield Lakeland Project Outcomes
Access and Gateway Appraisal Process (Including Events, Knowledge , Learning Opportunities or Interactive Technlogy)
Strategy
Policy Document
More connected and resilient landscape in which landowners agree a joint vision for future
care and management of the area
A better natural environment for people and wildlife, with a shared
understanding of what makes the area special and the vital eco-system
services the area provides
A deeper understanding of the area's rich cultural heritage,
celebreated by local people and visitors
More people active and engaged in the future of the area - a landscape
for all to learn about, value, experience and enjoy
Mapping current patterns of recreational access and
identifying under-represented groups
Identifying barriers and gateways for groups who do not
currently access the Lakeland area
Working with user groups and non-users to develop costed
recommendations to improve the accessibility and connectivity
into and within the landscape
Events, Knowledge / learning opportunities or interactive
technology
How Sheffield Lakeland landscape contributes to the quality of life of
communities living within the landscape partnership area and to that of the
urban populations
1. To integrate the Definitive Map review as an essential part of the ROWIP process. -
Sheffield has 3 definitive maps (County Borough, West Riding, Derbyshire) which require
consolidation
14. In areas designated for nature conservation the impact of access
provision will be treated with sensitivity and with due regard to the
likely affects on the flora, fauna and any important geology.
4. To integrate the rural and urban path network as a safe
and cohesive whole.
5. To identify areas of primary bridleway need. To resolve
route fragmentation and establish bridleway (multi-use)
routes where possible. - More accessible and may be of
more use to disabled people
6, 7, & 8. Identify those rural unclassified roads which should be 17 & 18. To provide confidence building measures and
added to
promote the path network through public education,
the Definitive Map as byways open to all traffic & whose usage community liaison and physical
by vehicles is inappropriate to the area. Survey old rural lanes improvements, with a focus on specific user types.
and classify which meet criteria for byways.
A
B
27. To identify use patterns, problems, desire and need in 23. To investigate adopting a grading scheme, allied to 11, 15. To ensure that open country areas have the necessary
Sheffield ROWIP 2007-17
relation to the path network and to consider the desirability national guidelines, for routes identified as having potential access points and develop classification system with improved
and necessity of legal path orders to improve and enhance for use by disabled people.
signage to facilitate awareness.
the network.
12 & 13. To enhance the provision of good quality paths and
network links to and along the river corridors, around
reservoirs, parks, woodlands, open spaces sites, canal
/riverside, and open country access.
19. Improve accessibility via path furniture, surfaces and
clearance regimes
To capitalise on the city element of our offer, we need to make sure that
Our aim is to look to create “recreation zones” to enable us to take a more strategic
Environmental implications will also need to be considered, ensuring
You should not have to be in the countryside to know that you are in We know that participation rates vary for outdoor recreation
the ‘city’ and the ‘outdoor’ elements are well connected so that people are
approach to investment in outdoor recreation. This will allow the city to be more proactive that any investment enhances the environment and does not
new ways of showcasing Sheffield’s outdoors, including through the The Outdoor City – our outdoor space should fully integrate with the with those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, women,
able to enjoy both as part of one coherent package, for example with
in its approach to investment, helping us to put in place essential elements such as trailheads,
way markers and facilities as well as investment needed to protect the environment wildlife disturbance.
visitors. Events, elite and participatory, will also help to drive
participation rates than the average.
Outdoor Joint Venture which meets bi-monthly. This consists of Profile of Sheffield monitored by Social Media monitoring way-marking, public transport provision and day-to-day land management.
exacerbate environmental issues such as air pollution, path erosion and new ‘The Outdoor City’ website designed for Sheffielders and urban fabric of the city through the use of public space.
BME communities and people with disabilities having lower
Delivery of this strategy will be overseen by the Sheffield
cycling and walking paths. They also include other infrastructure such as
from increased footfall
participation and tourism by showcasing the city as an outdoors
key partners across the city involved in outdoor recreation, tools, The Outdoor City
These sorts of infrastructure improvements benefit Sheffield people as well
destination for recreation
including major landowners
website visits
as visitors.
Some infrastructure, such as accommodation, is a business opportunity that will arise as a
Goals for attracting visitors: Increasing day visitors, Increasing overnight
result of new investment and an increased profile for the city’s outdoor places. However,
tourism spend, Increasing number of hotel stays, Attracting more
these opportunities may still require facilitation by organisations that are part of the Joint
outdoor conferences and events, Increasing the room rate
We will establish The Outdoor 100, made up of clubs,
Specific to outdoor recreation, Sheffield Hallam University is The Outdoor City Economic Strategy will be connected into the citywide
Venture
businesses, community groups, organisations and individuals set to launch their specialist Outdoor Recreation Research physical activity strategy Move More and will adopt the philosophy and the
who are passionate about the outdoors. This group will meet to Group ‘ORRG’. ORRG aims to carry out worldleading research approach outlined in that programme to reduce inequality in participation
review progress and identify any new developments taking through its team of leading sports scientists, sports
and thereby return the greatest health, social and economic benefit for the
place or new ideas in the city that we should incorporate into engineers, economists, social scientists, and experts on city. Given the mental health benefits of visiting the outdoors, the strategy
the strategy.
adventure tourism, access, the environment and ecosystems will also link into this agenda.
The Outdoor City Economic
Strategy
Any investments that arise as a result of this strategy will need to evidence the long-term
economic sustainability of the project - Assessed via; Jobs, Number of outdoor businesses,
GVA, Number of volunteers, Increase in investment from outdoor sector businesses
The Outdoor City marketing campaign needs to make sure
public transport options are made clear to people, but we also
need to identify where there are gaps in provision, and where
transport does not meet the requirements of people taking part
in outdoor recreation
If we view the walking and cycling connections in Sheffield as a web, attention needs to be
given to ‘radial routes’ that connect the various spokes that run from city to countryside.
These will be the routes that connect people’s homes to outdoor destinations, but also that
connect destinations to each other.
We aspire to deliver a network of 24 new walking and running routes across the city. We
have secured funding to deliver an initial 13 routes across Sheffield
To improve rail services and access to stations, focusing on interventions that can be
delivered in the short term
The view that new highway infrastructure should
not be seen as the principal way of providing
additional capacity has also been supported by
stakeholders outside the business community, who
highlighted the linkage between this topic and the
need to protect sensitive locations, such as the Peak
District National Park.
Since 2006, over 9,000 year 5 and 6 schoolchildren
throughout South Yorkshire received Bikeability cycle
training to level 2 standards. This means they have
the skills required to make a safe trip to school or
leisure activities on quiet roads
The country’s first Statutory Quality Bus Partnerships
between authorities and bus companies introduced
in North Sheffield and now in Barnsley, leading to
increased patronage and better buses
C
Sheffield City Region
Transport Plan (2011-26)
To ensure SCR is served by High Speed Rail
Our third goal is to reduce the emissions from
vehicles, since they lead to air pollution and
climate change. We mean to create a culture
whereby people are happy to make sustainable
travel choices and where economic prosperity
goes hand-in-hand with carbon efficiency
As per January 2010, a 66% increase in cycle use in
Sheffield, based on a 2001 baseline, and a reduction
in cycle accidents by 10% despite the increase in cycle use.
New bus services to serve green spaces, and the use
of accessibility criteria to prioritise the provision of
public transport to key services.
To develop public transport that connects people to jobs and training in both urban and
rural areas
Over 80% of our buses are now low-floor and
accessible to all.
Vision to make Sheffield well known as a City of Rivers and part of the Sheffield Signature - The Waterway corrridors will be attractive safe and healthy places to
Sheffield City of Rivers (2008 This will include the Rivers Don , Loxley and Rivelin western waterway corridors which start live, work and visit
and amended in 2014) now in the SLLP area
included within Sheffield
Waterways Strategy
Capitalising on the industrial heritage to become a destination in A vibrant and exciting mix of community, leisure, office and residential
Sheffield.
development
Priority 3.1 Green and Open Space Network - providing a
number of the key radial routes that link the city to the
countryside including the National park
Small Rivers initiative targeting the western rivers and upland
streas - working with voluntary groups eg Rivelin Valley
Conservation Group
Sheffield's wstern rivers - the Sheaf, Porter, Rivelin and Loxley are among
the City's most special places.
D
A model of sustainability - social, economic and enviromental
Loxley - Rivelin World Heritage Site investigate opportunities for
designation due to importance as the bithplace of cutlery and steel
manufacturing - with associated tourism, leisure and environmental
opportunities
Associated with the green network is the development of
footpats and cycleways.
Placing People at the Heart of Waterways Regeneration
In the West the river valleys form green corridors which break up the
suburban sprawl. They give residents acces to high quality open space and
woodlands and provide pedestrian and cycling links between the City and
National Park
Sheffield's WaterWays
Strategy 2014
Rich in Wildlife and a superb leisure and recreational resource
There is richness and variety of space and of high quality landscape for the
population to use and enjoy
Loxley and Rivelin Valley World Heritage potential - Birthplace of Cutlery
and Steel Manufacturing
E
2. We need supportive policy and legislation, as well as sufficient funding. Austerity is likely 4. We want to encourage visitors to the Peak District National Park to 5. We want more people to know where the resources that sustain 3. We want to spread the benefits visitors bring across the area without
to be with us for some years and our exit from the European Union brings uncertainties. We choose sustainable travel options and take away key messages on their lives come from and appreciate the value of those resources. harming the special qualities. We want people to care for their National
want the resources and means to conserve the special qualities. To do this, we need to have mitigating and adapting to climate change. We want to help
We want to increase business’s knowledge of the benefits that the Park. They can take positive action by volunteering to help protect the
a collective voice, as this is more influential than individual voices.
communities to plan for the impacts of extreme weather events Peak District National Park provides and encourage them to natural or cultural heritage. They can raise funds and donate to a
including flooding and drought. We want to encourage renewable promote this to others
National Park cause.
energy at an appropriate scale.
Peak District National Park
Management Plan -
Consultation 2017
6. We want diversification schemes that allow the farm as a whole to remain viable and 7. We want to 'join up' our monitoring work; including flora, fauna,
environmentally sustainable. We want to attract and nurture the PDNP’s next generation of cultural and heritage features, agricultural features and land cover. Dark
farmers and land managers.
Peak and South West Peak both have landscape scale partnerships with
a vision and actions, but the White Peak area is still developing and
needs to agree a vision.
8. We want to ensure adequate access to services across the PDNP such as
schools, shops, health facilities etc. We want to ensure a proactive
approach to addressing the local need for appropriate housing in the PDNP
DL - A diverse working and cherished landscape
DL3 - The richness of the natural environment will be conserved,
restored and enhanced so wildlife can thrive, ecological systems
continue to improve and its diverse geology is retained and valued.
DL2 - Our cultural heritage and distinctive local traditions will be W - A welcoming and inspiring place
sustained and enhanced as an integral part of modern Peak District
life.
F
Peak District National Park
Management Plan - 2012-
2017 (currently under review)
DL1 - The diverse national park landscapes will adapt to challenges whilst retaining their
special qualities and natural beauty.
W12 The Peak District will be an unrivalled setting for opportunities
which enable people to develop a deeper understanding and
appreciation of place, and which instil a desire to contribute to the
consevertation, community and economgy of the national park.
G
H
I
3. Work with DCMS to identify locations for infrastructure. Digital Derbyshire Local
2. 10 new businesses signed up to Environmental Quality Mark by end of 12.F. Implementation of plans to enhance Castleton Visitor Centre 5. Promoting visits during 'off-peak' hours. Encourage brand champions
Broadband Plan to provide fibre broadband to 95% of premises by end of 2016.
2015/16. Utilise LEADER funding to improve job creation and improve and North Lees Campsite by March 2016
to promote PDNP. Funding bids submitted to Visit England Challenge
productivity in rural businesses.
Fund to promote the brand, with a focus on international visitors.
Peak District National Park
4. Promote green-building techniques at open days Disseminate, promote and monitor impacts of the #DoThisPeakDistrict
Management Plan - Delivery
animation film and the schools pack that has been produced to
Plan 2015 - 17
accompany it. These will also get sent to all YHA’s
Ensure we have and maintain sufficient supplies of drinking water to
deliver to customers long into the future.
Reduce leakage sustainably.
Yorkshire Water 25 Year
Blueprint Plan (2013)
Prepare for extreme weather events or changing conditions caused by
climate change.
This strategy envisages a vital, productive and attractive green infrastructure network, which Enhance natural habitats, conserve ecological diversity and manage
Community
Provide new places where all people, young and old, can take
has the capacity and strength to link South Yorkshire’s communities, supporting sustainable valuable natural resources. Restore, link and buffer existing natural
• Engage communities to use, improve and manage
exercise, practise sports and learn about the natural environment.
change within a resilient and biodiverse ecological network while helping to deliver social places. Connect habitats, to build a more resilient network.
their local green spaces and wider environment.
South Yorkshire Green
Create new and improved cycling nd walking routes
cohesion.
• Make it possible for people to use their local green
for recreation and getting to/from work and school.
Infrastructure Strategy 2011
networks for recreation, healthy activity and travel.
Promote the right image of South Yorkshire as a great place with great natural assets – the
Build up from the existing high-quality spaces by investing in areas
forests, woodlands, parks, moorlands, national park, wetlands and waterways etc. – that
where provision is poor and where there is little open or green
together represent our unique selling point.
space near where people live and work.
6. Completion of 'Pedal Peak phase II', Delivery of 'Summer of
Cycling', plan from Derwent Valley Cycle Steering Group to
create a cycle route from Matlock to Derby City.
12.C. South West Peak – ‘Better Outdoors Project’ aims to bring
together health and social care professionals, voluntary sector
organisations concerned with particular health issues, members
of the Local Access Forum and Health Trusts to help advise the
partnership on how to improve access to the South West Peak,
whilst removing barriers for people living with health
inequalities.
Make water usage matter – continue providing help
and information programmes for our customers on
water conservation and efficiency to reduce the amount
of water used per person
Share knowledge on pollution sources for catchments and
water bodies and help others to understand and take action
to avoid damaging the water environment. For example
helping farmers understand the impact of chemicals on the
water environment

Information from SHU ORRG for the SLLP Statement of Significance
This information is drawn from our final report to the Sheffield Lakelands Landscape Partnership
(SLLP) - further detail is provided in that report. We have assumed the SLLP requires our input to
sections `D - Culture and Communities` and `E2 - Recreation`, so that is how this information is
structured. However, we also note that many of our findings also relate to other sections of the
Statement of Significance, and we anticipate that the final Statement of Significance will integrate
findings from the wide range of studies undertaken for the project.
D - CULTURE AND COMMUNITIES
A Living Landscape Culture
Sheffield is a city built on seven hills, and it is that landscape - and its rivers, woodlands and mineral
resources - which has produced the communities and industries we see today. A sense of place and
of local distinctiveness remains very strong amongst the city's residents. Research undertaken for
the Access and Gateways Study included consultation with local individuals and groups in the area,
along with a questionnaire survey of around 1000 individuals. The analysis of this data has provided
a detailed insight into what makes this area so special for both local people and visitors. A
combination of cultural and natural heritage provides this local distinctiveness, which could be
further explained and interpreted in order to add to people's understanding and enjoyment of the
area, and reinforce their engagement and sense of place.
Many people visiting and working in the area focus on the huge significance of water in this
relatively `wild` landscape - the reservoirs, local dams and rivers, sited in the open moorland and
steep-sided valleys. These features are clearly one of the main draws of the area. However, local
landscape historian, Professor Melvyn Jones (personal communication, 2017), also suggests that
another important factor is its `continuity` of human habitation and use. This continuity of human
habitation and use is still recorded and celebrated in the SLLP area today, with extremely active
history societies in Bradfield and Stocksbridge, with excellent local archives and committed
members. There are also several individuals with important stories to tell and personal research
which needs to be captured, to better appreciate the area.
Alongside this significant cultural heritage, is the area's rich natural heritage. Over half of the project
area falls within the Peak District National Park and the western margin includes the Dark Peak Site
of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protected Area and Special Area of Conservation. The area
represents a valuable buffer between these protected habitats and Sheffield's urban fringe.
Promotion of recreation and access in the area needs to take account of the need to protect
vulnerable habitats and species.
It is also important to demonstrate the linkages between people's use and management of our
landscapes in the distant past, through the development of local communities and the industries
which support them, into the modern era - not just chronologically, but also spatially and socially.
The harnessing of the power of water - both its challenges and opportunities - is a very strong theme
in this landscape. Developments and events from the Victorian era can sit alongside some of the
challenges of flood management in modern times. Leisure use of the SLLP area is both a modern
phenomenon, as well as a historical one, from the changing use of ancient highways to the Sheffield
Lakeland's bus tours of the 1950s, to the recent Grand Depart for the 2014 Le Tour de France. The

trials of Second World War prisoners (held at the Redmires POW Camp in the 1940s) eventually
settling in a foreign land, resonate with the experiences of refugees today, and Sheffield's role as a
`City of Sanctuary`. These linkages and `stories` can help people to better under the landscape,
reinforce a sense of place, and reconnect people with their local area.
D1 - Strong Communities
(Mostly provided by Waymark Research? Not sure we can add anything here??)
D2 - Strong Associations with Sheffield People
As part of the Access and Gateways Study, people's existing use and views of the SLLP area were
analysed. A user survey of over 1000 people explored existing patterns of use, what people liked
about the area, and barriers to use. Consultation with both local community groups and individual
stakeholders reinforced many of their views. Many of these stakeholders emphasised the attractions
of water - the reservoirs, the smaller dams and the river valleys - set in a `wilder` landscape of
moors, farmland and woodland.
National surveys by Natural England, MENE, Strava and the Ordnance Survey suggest that the area is
not visited as frequently as areas to the south-west of Sheffield, although there are some specific
`hot spots` around Bradfield and Stocksbridge. Those people that do explore further afield, rather
than in the immediate river valleys close to the built up area of Sheffield, tend to be visitors to the
area rather than local residents. So there is further potential to engage with local people and
enhance access to the area, as well as improving the experience for visitors.
People who currently use the area for recreation agree on the main attractions - access to the
reservoirs and river valleys for longer walks and various informal leisure activities. In total, 80% of
survey respondents described the local landscape as "extremely important" to them. But there are
barriers preventing people from using the area more frequently. Almost a third of respondents said
they needed more information about where to go, with another large group stating they don't know
what they are allowed to do when they get there. Fewer users mentioned specific attributes such as
local history, cultural heritage or wildlife and nature; suggesting these features are not currently
explained adequately to contribute to people's enjoyment of the area.
E - OPPORTUNITIES
E2 - Recreation
Many individuals and local groups have already undertaken much recording and sharing of the
history and stories associated with the local landscape. The SLLP project can build on existing
cultural and natural heritage knowledge, to form a basis for increased interpretation and enjoyment
by local people and visitors to enable a broader range of people to enjoy this sense of place and its
connection to the wider city of Sheffield.
The Access and Gateways Study findings have confirmed that the main way of improving access to
the area's landscape, cultural and natural heritage, would be through a range of actions.
Recommendations include: a community based project to capture and utilise existing knowledge
about local heritage; increased information and interpretation provision; and some limited access
improvements associated with visitor hubs and community gateways.

Shaded contacts - these have been contacted by either email, phone, social media or meeting in person
Name
Danny Piermattei
Georgina Hartley
Louise Huson
Alan Rodgers
John Gill
Malcolm Nunn
Mavis Butler
Teresa Bissat
Trevor Bagshaw
Organisation
Action for Stannington
Beautiful Stannington
BHS Access & Bridleways Officer SY
Blackbrook Farm
Bolsterstone Community Group
Bradfield Brewery
Bradfield Historical Society
Bradfield in Bloom
Bradfield Parish Council
Bradfield Parish Council
Bradfield Parish Council
Lynn Russell Bradfield Village Hall
Chris Prescott Bradfield Walkers are Welcome
Dan Cook
British Cycling
Andy Tickle CPRE and Friends of the Peak District
Deepcar Brass Band
Ed Shaw
Don Catchment Rivers Trust
Dungworth Bradfield Heritage Group
Richard Godley East Peak Countryside Associates
Tracy Charlesworth East Peak Innovation Partnership
Adam Mullen Environment Agency
Jo Briddock Environment Agency
Michael Barden Environment Agency
Craig Grimes Experience Community CIC
Annabel Plumtree Fox Valley
Judy Gough Friends of the Peak District (CPRE)
Good Companions Rambling Club Sheffield
Barbara Bristow Greave House Care Farm
Roy Mosley Head of Conservation
Mike Harding Hummingbird
Ruth Morgan Hunter Archaeological Society
Aisling Cooling IWUN Project (University of Sheffield)
Terry Howard LAF
Simon Gurney Land Agent
Langsettandmidhopeatwar.co.uk
Jonathon Barnaby Local birder
Local carols
Stuart Young Loxley silver Band
Lynette Jackson Loxley Valley Group
Malcolm and Cath MacKay Loxley Valley Preservation Society
Jan Symington Loxley Valley Protection society
Felicity Dodd Natural England
Pauline Shaw North West U3A
Oughtibridge & Worrall Local Services
Oughtibridge Brass Band
Ed Andrew Our Cow Molly Farm
Outdoor City 100

Rhodri Thomas PDNPA
Sue Smith PDNPA
Mike Rhodes PDNPA
John Harker Peak & Northern Footpaths Society
Richard Pett PROW - Peak District
Steve Hardcastle Ride Sheffield
Graham Appleby Rivelin Valley Conservation Group
Dave Aspinall SCC
Jon Dallow SCC
Mick Hanson SCC
Chris Smith Senior Outdoor Learning Officer, SRWT
Sam Beaton Senior Public Rights Of Way Officer, SCC
Ken Dorning Sheffield Area Geology Trust
Sheffield Black & Ethnic Minority Environmental Network
Sheffield Conservation Volunteers
Nikki Connolly Sheffield Industrial Museums Trust
Jen Rickard Sheffield Outdoor City Joint Venture
Kate Reveley Sheffield Outdoor City Joint Venture
Sheffield Ramblers Association;
Mark Todd Sheffield United Community Foundation
Sheffield Visually Impaired Walking Group
Sheffield Walking Group
Joan Crofts Short Walks NW
Kate Thompson Soundpost
Graham Shepherd South Yorkshire Badger Group
Robert Bell South Yorkshire Bat Group
Cathy Slater SRWT
Liz Ballard SRWT
Andrew Perrins SRWT Trustee and SLLP
Stannington Brass Band
Tom Newman Steel Valley Project
Stocksbridge & Deepcar Community Forum
Stocksbridge & Deepcar 'Say what you think' Community Forum
Stocksbridge & District History Society
Barbara Horsman Stocksbridge Community Forum
Andy Clarke Stocksbridge Community Leisure Centre (4SLC Trust Ltd)
Stocksbridge Out and About
Julie Grocutt Stocksbridge Town Council
Teresa Bissat Stocksbridge Town Council
Elaine Smith Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome (resource)
Pat Clifton Stroller s 111 (public transport)
Jon Fash Strollers 1
Norman Benson
Shirley Tasker
Angela
Christine
Phil Warren
Strollers 11 (Sat)
Strollers 11 (Tues)
Strollers 111 (Sat)
Strollers SE
SU/Trustee

Jenny
David
Jim McNeil
Julie Corner
Chris Andrews
Jackie Smith
Judy
Robin Peel
Ruth Clifford
Trevor Bagshaw
Mary Garside
Alan Bailey
Catherine Doel
Rhiannon Owen
Paul
Geoff Lomas
Sunday Ramblers
Sunday Walkers
SYAS
The Sheffield Christmas Tree Company
The Venue, Stocksbridge
U3A group
U3A group
U3A group
U3A group
U3A group
U3A group
Uo3A Various Walking groups (see contacts above)
Village Made Oughtibridge
Wadsley & Loxley Common
Wadsley & Loxley Commoners
Walkers Forum
Waymark
WB & FH RAG/LAF/BHS
Worrall Environment Group
Yorkshire Water
South Yorkshire Industrial History Group
Additional suggestions received from Richard Godley
Bradfield History Group
Hillsborough & Owlerton History Group
North Sheffield Volunteers
Sheffield Environmental Network - various BAMER walking groups within this umbrella organisation
Wednesday Wayfarers walking group

mail, phone, social media or meeting in person
Email address Emailed Social media Phoned In person
actionforstannington@yahoo.co.uk
P
P
georginahartley@talktalk.net
P
louise.huson@hotmail.co.uk
mail@bolsterstone.info
contact@bradfieldbrewery.com
archives@bradfield-yorks-pc.gov.uk
http://bvh.greybear.co/contact/
pfb40402@gmail.com
admin@bradfield-yorks-pc.gov.uk
t18bagshaw@btinternet.com
ltrussell@btinternet.com
chrisprescott1949@yahoo.co.uk
11-Nov
andy@friendsofthepeak.org.uk
ed.shaw@dcrt.org.uk
melsmart222@aol.com; Bradfield.history@mypostoffice.co.uk; rgodley@btinternet.com
rgodley@btinternet.com
P
tracy@epip.org.uk
adam.mullen@environment-agency.gov.uk
P
joanne.briddock@environment-agency.gov.uk P
michael.barden@environment-agency.gov.uk
cgrimes@experiencecommunity.co.uk
P
annabel.plumtree@foxvalleysheffield.co.uk P P
julie@cprepeakandsyorks.org.uk
P
goodcompanionsrambling@gmail.com
greavehouse@yahoo.co.uk
r.mosley@wildsheffield.com
mh.hummingbird@btconnect.com
ruthmorgan755@hotmail.com
aisling.cooling@sheffield.ac.uk
P
tmhoward@live.co.uk
simon@simongurney.net
editor@langsettandmidhopeatwar.co.uk
j.barnaby@ukgateway.net
info@localcarols.org.uk
admin@loxleysilverband.org.uk
jan.symington@gmail.com
malcolmmackay1@gmail.com
jan.symington@gmail.com
felicite.dodd@naturalengland.org.uk
pauline.shaw22@gmail.com
P
26-Nov
26-Nov
19-Dec
24-Oct
ed@ourcowmolly.co.uk
P
P
11-Nov

hodri.thomas@peakdistrict.gov.uk
20-Dec
sue.smith@peakdistrict.gov.uk
20-Dec
Mike.Rhodes@peakdistrict.gov.uk
20-Dec
trueblade55@yahoo.co.uk
Richard.Pett@peakdistrict.gov.uk P 20-Dec
info@ridesheffield.org.uk
P
rvcg.chair@btopenworld.com;
dave.aspinall@sheffield.gov.uk>
21-Nov
Jon.Dallow@sheffielfd.gov.uk
26-Oct
michael.hanson@sheffield.gov.uk P 21-Dec
c.smith@wildsheffield.com
sam.beaton@sheffield.gov.uk
21-Dec
kjdorning@googlemail.com
enquiries@shebeen.org.uk
http://www.sheffieldconservation.org/contact_us
events@simt.co.uk
P
Jennifer.Rickard@sheffield.gov.uk
21-Nov
Kate.Reverley@sheffield.gov.uk
P
webadmin@sheffieldramblers.org; rambles@sheffieldramblers.org
'mark.todd@sufc.co.uk'
hewitt.c4@sky.com; bhirst80@gmail.com
sheffieldwalkinggroup@hotmail.com
croftsj@uwclub.net
kate@soundpost.org.uk
grashep@talktalk.net
robert.andrew.bell@gmail.com
c.slater@wildsheffield.com
l.ballard@wildsheffield.com
19-Dec
a.perrins@wildsheffield.com
StanningtonBrassBand@btinternet.com
tom.newman@steelvalleyproject.org
15-Sep
P
you think' Community Forum
P
P
windhillbarbara@gmail.com
business@4slc.org.uk
20-Nov
P
Ja1811@hotmail.co.uk
admin@stocksbridge-council.co.uk
10-Oct
elainesmith390@gmail.com
P
Pat.clifton@outlook.com
jonfash@talktalk.net
nobenson@gmail.com /
raymond.pigott@btinternet.com
shirley.tasker@talktalk.net
angela.lam.76@googlemail.com /
jujoe@blueyonder.co.uk
cheddy@live.co.uk
p.warren@sheffield.ac.uk

jennyparker1@btinternet.com /
j.williams@sheffield.ac.uk
david.hydes24@btinternet.com
jim.mcneil@sheffield.gov.uk
Julie.Corner@thevenuestocksbridge.co.uk
chris.andrews16@btinternet.com
jackiedsmith@btinternet.com
judy8re@btinternet.com
robin.peel@btinternet.com
clifford_ruth@hotmail.com
t18bagshaw@btinternet.com
contacts above)
m-garside@blueyonder.co.uk
alannebailey@talk21.com
P
P
catherine@waymark.info P P P
rhiannon.owen@sheffcol.ac.uk
paulandbridge@outlook.com
Geoff.D.Lomas@yorkshirewater.co.uk P 21-Nov
amjballfca@blueyonder.co.uk
P
P
P
P
P
P
ing groups within this umbrella organisation

Via Lynn Crowe
Via Lynn Russell?
Via Teresa
All site visits and workshop
Via Julie
https://dungworthbradfieldheritage.wordpress.com/
Emailed by no reply
No reply
Tel: 01142882940

Plus route priotisation and workshop
Plus route priotisation and workshop
http://theoutdoorcity.co.uk/walking-groups/
Out of date contact details - now Pauline
Email undeliverable
Tel: 01142888624

Survey location
Event attended & social media distribution
Via Keith

WHAT?
AREA Route name / identifier Summary details Improvement type
1 Redmires
WHERE?
Conduit Extension and
improved access to heritate
features
Redmires Conduit out
from Crookes and North
to Oaking Clough
Visitor hub
Key
beneficiaries
People with
physical
disabilities
Buy in / lead Rationale Evidence
SCC, PDNPA
WHO AND WHY?
Improve access
including
heritage features
Redmires is well used
and was cited within
survey data as an
area for improvement
A better natural
environment for
people and
wildlife
A deeper
understanding of
the area's rich
cultural heritage
PP PPP PP
PRIORITISATION CRITERIA
More people
active and
engaged
2 Wyming Brook
3 Malin Bridge
4 Loxley Valley
5 Langsett
Wyming Brook footpath
improvements
Valley 'Lakeland' entry point
Malin Bridge to Dam Flask
A616 Cycleway
Drainage
improvements,
surfacing with local
materials
Welcome to the
Sheffield Lakeland entry
point, signage,
information and
interpretation
Improvements to route,
signage, information
and interpretation
Stocksbridge to Langsett
Visitor hub
Community gateway
Enhancing access
Visitor hub
People with
physical
disabilities
Local users and
visitors
Local users and
visitors
Cyclists, people
with physical
disabilities,
families
SCC, PDNPA
tbc
SRWT / SVP(?)
Need to engage
local groups
Improve access
including
heritage features
Greater
awareness of the
local landscape
Improved access
to and
understanding of
heritage
Yorkshire Water Improved cycling
in the area.
Under-utilised
resource
This link improves
access between
Redmires and Rivelin
Stakeholder and
public demand
Stakeholder and
public demand
Demand for flat and
easy cycle routes for
beginners, improvers
and families
PP PP PP
PPP PPP PPP
PPP PPP PPP
P P PPP
6 Bradfield
7 Rivelin Valley
8 Stocksbridge -
Fox Valley
8 Broomhead,
More Hall,
Ewden Valley
9 Cut Gate
Agden reservoir
Rivelin
Valley 'Lakeland' entry point
Broomhead
Improvements to Cut Gate
Bridleway
Upgrade from footpath
to bridleway
Improvements to route,
signage, information
and interpretation
Welcome to the
Sheffield Lakeland entry
point, signage,
information and
interpretation
Upgrade from footpath
to bridleway
Drainage
improvements,
surfacing with local
materials
Visitor hub
Enhancing access
Community gateway
Enhancing access
Enhancing access
Horse riders
Local users and
visitor
Local users and
visitors
Mountain
bikers, horse
riders
Mountain
bikers, horse
riders, walkers
SCC
SRWT / SVP(?)
Need to engage
local groups
tbc
SCC, BHS
PDNPA
Improved access
for user group
Improved access
to and
understanding of
heritage
Greater
awareness of the
local landscape
Improved access
for user group
Improving
landscape
sustainability
BHS support and SCC
strategy P P PP
Stakeholder and
public demand
Stakeholder and
public demand
BHS support and SCC
strategy
Public demand
PPP PPP PPP
PPP PPP PPP
P P PP
PP PP P

10 Strines
Improve Boots Folly Footpath
Stone flagging
Enhancing access
Walkers PDNPA, SCC Improved access
to heritage,
landscape
sustainability
SCC support
P PPP P

ITISATION CRITERIA
RATING
Stakeholder
support
Landowner
support
Other issues
/ factors
Cost
Classification
Y Y tbc A
Y Y £10,000 A
Y Y tbc A
Y Y tbc A
? Y Out of area tbc tbc
Y ? PDNPA
oppositon
£20,000
C
Y Y tbc A
Y Y tbc A
Y ?
Y
Y
Yorkshire
Water
support
limited
SSSI area.
Cost
£12,000
£215k in
total, but
£140k still
to find
C
B

Y
N
SSSI area.
Cost
£40,000 C

Project:
Upgrade Public Footpath around Agden Reservoir to Public
Bridleway
Location:
Estimated costs: £20,000
Description:
Permissions:
Strategic value:
Upgrade 2 x bridges, clear vegetation, amend barriers
Land owned by Sheffield City Council and Yorkshire Water.
Provisional agreement in place from both for upgrade. Short and
simple legal process to upgrade from Footpath to Bridleway
Sheffield has a small number of Bridleways compared to the
national average and a key policy aim of the council is to
increase the number of Bridleways. The British Horse Society
has identified this route as being highly desirable for their
members

Project:
Upgrade Public Footpath from Dwarriden Lane to New Road
to Public Bridleway
Location:
Estimated costs: £12,000
Description:
Permissions:
Strategic value:
Widen existing track, amend barriers
Land owned by Sheffield City Council. Provisional agreement in
place from landowner for upgrade. Short and simple legal
process to upgrade from Footpath to Bridleway
Sheffield has a small number of Bridleways compared to the
national average and a key policy aim of the council is to
increase the number of Bridleways. The British Horse Society
has identified this route as being highly desirable for their
members

Project:
Improve Cut Gate Bridleway
Location:
Estimated costs: £140,000
Description:
Permissions:
Strategic value:
Drainage improvements, and surfacing with local materials
SSSI so NE permission needed
£215,000 worth of work has been identified by Moors For the
Future as being needed to the route to protect the surrounding
moorland from further erosion and damage. £75,000 worth of
work is proposed to be done via the BMC’s Mend Our
Mountains project, leaving £140,000 needed from elsewhere

Project:
Improve Boots Folly Footpath
Location:
Estimated costs: £40,000
Description:
Permissions:
Strategic value:
Stone flagging
None needed
Part of promoted route Sheffield Country Walk. Complements
the proposed SLLP Improving Water Quality work on this hillside

Project:
Improve Wyming Brook Footpath
Location:
Estimated costs: £10,000
Description:
Permissions:
Drainage improvements, and surfacing with local materials
None needed

Peak District National Park – SLLP Access Suggestions
In Spring 2018, the National Park Authority will be launching its first batch of Miles without
Stiles routes. These are accessible routes for all to enjoy which showcase the special
qualities of the National Park. In the SLLP this covers routes which connect with
communities and gateways to the National Park. These are at Langsett, Damflask, Redmires
Conduit and Morehall and Broomhead. These routes are already in place and in some cases
are highlighted as easy going trails. There are further possible routes and extensions in the
area subject to the agreement of landowners, consents required and funding being
available.
Routes providing access to key features and characteristics of man’s influence in the area
The accessible routes focus on the reservoirs. Work on the reservoirs which commenced in
1830 transformed this area.
Redmires Conduit Extension – extend in the direction of the reservoir and building and
across the dam wall. The conduit is in Yorkshire Water’s ownership and support of adjacent
landowner would be sought. Specifications required for surfacing, gates and a bench at the
reservoir and fencing as necessary for the dam wall. Consider designating the section along
the conduit as a public footpath. Consider potential upgrading and use of the building.
Roadside and nearby car park.
Rivelin & Wyming Brook – Remove or upgrade anti-vehicle structures to ensure suitability
for motorised buggies and all-terrain wheelchairs. Specifications also required for surfacing a
section near Rivelin car park.
Morehall South and Broomhead Link – link across the dam wall to the bridleway to the
south of Morehall. Specifications required for surfacing and gates. Consider also potential to
create a link to avoid road section at the western end of Broomhead. Yorkshire Water
ownership but angling club have an interest. Specifications required. Roadside car parking.
Langsett South – extend the available sections of the route to link in with the wider network.
Identify routes in association with Yorkshire Water.
Agden – limited parking for access to accessible sections. Consider potential for upgrading
and extending along the northern part of the reservoir and linking through the woods to the
south. Yorkshire Water and Sheffield City Council ownership.
Heritage routes which show the development of access and set out the history of the area
Cut Gate – ancient bridleway. Used and repaired for Derwent woodland farmers to ride to
Penistone market. Key mountain bike route. Promoted by horseriders as part of the Kinder
Loop. In need of repair. Specifications drawn up. Identified as part of the Mend our
Mountains fundraising campaign commencing in Spring 2018.
Dukes Road – remnant of a track first used from 1750 for transporting stone to link with Bar
Dyke and Bradfield. Upgraded by landowner for access for grouse moor management and
used by Moors for the Future for conservation works in the area. On access land. Potential
accessible route if parking made available and with the landowner’s agreement.
Strines Tower & Strines/Mortimer Road – the tower is a major landmark in this area.
Consider potential for repair and use of the building. The Strines Inn was built to cater for the
new wheeled traffic as a result of the bridleway becoming a turnpike in 1771. Potential to
improve access in the area and links to the tower – new public rights of way to link in with

access land, new access points on access land, new access land dedications, concession
path across the dam wall, upgrading and extension of concession path through Bole Edge
Plantation, reinstate car parking at Foulstone Road. Landowners include Yorkshire Water,
Sheffield CC, and the Wentworth Estate.
Sue Smith, January 2018

Survey data mapped by area
Map 1 - Participation in different activities by area
Map 2 - Frequency of visits by area

Map 3 - MENE survey data by area

Appendix 8
Audience Development and
Community Engagement Report

THE STRATEGIC CONTEXT FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
FINAL REPORT – FEBRUARY 2018
Prepared for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership by Catherine Doel, Richard Godley
CONTENTS
The Strategic Context for Community Engagement ............................................................................................... 1
Background ......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Themes ............................................................................................................................................................... 2
Health & wellbeing ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Increase Understanding / Develop a sense of Responsibility ......................................................................... 3
Desire to reach a wider audience ................................................................................................................... 5
Schools & Young people ................................................................................................................................. 7
Working collaboratively with other partners ................................................................................................. 8
Branding and Sense of Place ............................................................................................................................... 9
Addressing a Period of Uncertainty .................................................................................................................. 10
Economic factors .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Climate Change ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Carbon usage ................................................................................................................................................ 11
Ecosystems services ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Transport & Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 12
Brexit............................................................................................................................................................. 12
Government Initiatives ................................................................................................................................. 12
Should there be a reflection point? .............................................................................................................. 13
Summary of surveys referenced ....................................................................................................................... 13
Groups referenced and consulted: ................................................................................................................... 14
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................... 15
BACKGROUND
To provide a vision framework for community engagement we have reviewed a number of strategies produced
by organisations in the area.
We reviewed these strategies to check if what SLLP is planning to do relating to community engagement and
audience participation will add value, or if there is a danger of overlapping effort. Many of the strategies
include comment on participation and community engagement, so we have used the reports to inform SLLP
audience strategy as well as checking for gaps in these strategies that SLLP could potentially address.
1 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

We reviewed the following documents and have written a number of executive summaries:
PDNPA Management Plan (PDMP) – Appendix 1
Sheffield Heritage Strategy Plan, JUHS – Appendix 2
Sheffield Economic Strategy, Sheffield City Council – Appendix 3
Sheffield: the Outdoor City Strategy, - Appendix 4
Brexit, NCVO – Appendix 5
LEADER programme strategic review, East Peak Innovation Partnership – Appendix 6
Sheffield City Council Area Ward priorities – Appendix 7
Waterways Strategy – Appendix 8
#refugeeswelcome in Parks, The University of Sheffield, 2017 – Appendix 9
Robert Macfarlane: Do children in the UK spend enough time outdoors? - BBC Newsnight -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a7cjq_N3dE
Sheffield Environmental Movement – local best practice working with BAMER communities -
Appendix 10
MOSAIC, Campaign for National Parks – Appendix 11
MIND / New Economics Foundation research– 5 Ways to Wellbeing – Appendix 12
The Sheffield Woodland Environmental Enhancement Project (SWEEP)
Brexit – Effect on farming – Appendix 13
Sheffield City Council – Climate Change – Appendix 14
Sheffield Woodland and Trees strategy 2016 – Appendix 15
IWUN – Improving Wellbeing Through Urban Nature – Appendix 16
This is a period of uncertainty, politically and environmentally. The document review also aimed to assess
other organisations’ views on the future of:
Farmed landscapes
Ecosystem services
Climate change
Health
THEMES
The strategic themes relating to engagement and participation that were prevalent in the reports were:
HEALTH & WELLBEING
The benefits of accessing green space for health and wellbeing are well documented. Most of the strategies
included a reference to H&W.
SLLP can look to add value by leading specific initiatives designed to promote health and wellbeing. The
findings of the 5 Ways to Wellbeing should be taken into considerations when planning activities.
Report references:
MIND - 5 ways to Wellbeing – Connect, be active, take notice, learn, give.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the opportunity to engage in work or educational activities
particularly helps to lift older people out of depression.
Research into actions for promoting happiness has shown that committing an act of kindness once a
2 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

week over a six-week period is associated with an increase in wellbeing.
(see Appendix 12)
PDMP - A National Park for everyone. This aims to widen participation by helping to remove physical
and mental barriers, supporting access for all and promoting the health and wellbeing benefits that
this can provide.
JUHS - Explore and develop strategic links and initiatives between history, heritage, city
economy, communities, health and well-being.
#refugeeswelcome: … feel too low or too exhausted to venture outdoors, where you are visible and
potentially judged.
… the temporary nature of these trips [to the countryside] brings about limitations. Regular visits may
have more long-term benefits. Ultimately, autonomy is important as well as respite. Asylum seekers
who have managed to find and take part in outdoor activities, walking or running groups, gardening
projects etc. clearly felt the wellbeing benefits of these small-scale achievements. See Appendix 9
LEADER - Promote the health benefits of outdoor recreation, including implementing an Outdoor
programme of events mainly linked to the projects that have been supported. In particular Walkers
are Welcome.
IWUN – p51 Green prescribing – this recent report suggests ‘green prescribing’ should be monitored.
See Appendix 16
Green Prescribing is a subject that is likely to gain traction as health professions begin to understand
the benefits and have access to ways of fulfilling such a ‘prescription’. SRWT are working to build up
data and case studies to raise the profile and viability of green prescribing locally. It is possible that
during delivery phase of SLLP, green prescribing can be included in projects.
The SLLP’s aim to prioritise health and wellbeing in its project is echoed widely through the strategic aims of
other organisations. The SLLP should look to provide a framework for a collaborative approach between
partners and interested groups to help prevent overlap. Additionally, there are studies on good practice
emerging which SLLP should include in its project delivery – especially the Sheffield Uni #refugeeswelcome
research.
It is too soon to recommend ‘green prescribing’ be included in SLLP projects, but consideration should be
given to this subject as findings emerge and SLLP projects start to be delivered.
INCREASE UNDERSTANDING / DEVELOP A SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY
There is a demand for information, and a need to update the public on the latest thinking – not only to
encourage volunteering, but to inform behaviour (e.g feeding ducks appropriate food) and aid enjoyment (e.g.
what footwear kids should wear) and add a sense of purpose to getting outdoors (e.g. citizen science apps).
Understanding how to access the countryside - Information from ORRG report – people aren’t brave about
venturing into the countryside, research suggests they want information (facts) and reassurance’. They need a
better understanding of where to go and what to do. At a basic level they need advice on being comfortably
equipped to go outdoors e.g. correct footwear.
3 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

Preventing conflicts of interest – Our interviews and consultation suggests that there is a potential conflict
between countryside access and nature conservation. Improved information promoting areas suitable for
different pursuits should help people to help nature.
Understanding conservation effort – Waymark’s work in the field of interpretation on other LPS projects gives
us direct insight into the need to translate the work of ecologists and heritage experts into layman’s terms to
increase people’s understanding. The Waterways Strategy mentioned that much of the work undertaken
previously was little known or understood, which is a missed opportunity that can now be addressed
Encouraging Volunteering – The Sheffield Woodland Environmental Enhancement Project (SWEEP): - These
are the stewards of the natural environment and ambassadors for the outdoors. Becoming a volunteer brings
opportunities, skills, knowledge and confidence to those involved. Younger people particularly benefit from
the experience and volunteering opportunities within the outdoor recreation network. With a high proportion
of work in this sector being seasonal, volunteering offers many young people their first taste of life in a work
place environment. We have a strong reputation for working with volunteers and we will maintain this
commitment.
Sheffield Woodland and Trees strategy 2016 - 30 2.4.3. Volunteers and Groups - A significant number
of people in Sheffield volunteer their time (in excess of 5,000 hours per year), and are part of
organised groups which contribute to, manage and have an interest in trees, woodlands and green
spaces within the city. Involvement includes practical management and maintenance of green spaces,
publicising activities and events, fundraising, promoting and protecting these natural assets for all to
enjoy.
Partner organisations will rely on volunteers to deliver their projects. The challenge for Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership is to extend the number and diversity of volunteer groups working on projects during
the delivery phase. Having spoken to those running projects it is clear that they are familiar with working with
volunteers, but even so we recommend that they review the good practice on offer for anything extra that
they can include to support increasing the diversity within the group.
We have undertaken some desk research to identify best practice and resources to develop and work with
volunteers. See Appendices 16 and 17
The SLLP needs to put in place a communication framework for disseminating information to the
community. Information should be consistently delivered by SLLP and partners.
Communications need to be included in all projects to keep the community engaged and informed.
SLLP should encourage and support organisations involved in project delivery to ensure best practice in
working with volunteers to increase the number and diversity of volunteers.
The following reports referenced this theme:
PDNP – Aims: Encouraging enjoyment and understanding of the area. Promoting a sense of harmony
and responsibility
JUHS – Aim: Increase local, regional and national awareness of the Sheffield area’s heritage stories,
sites and assets
LEADER - the intervention of funds to support the delivery of a high quality visitor experience,
safeguarding sensitive environments and maintaining the integrity of designated sites.
4 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

SCC Ward Consultation aims to encourage use of countryside & open spaces: (see appendix 7)
Matching volunteers to projects and ensuring people are aware of services on offer.
Improving access to parks and open spaces for all
Ensuring accessibility to a range of rich heritage
Improve digital skills to access information
Waterways Strategy - Perhaps the single most important job of this Strategy is to engage the people
of Sheffield in the care of all of our waterways. We will work with local communities to seek funds to
deliver local ‘river rescue plans.’ This will be co-ordinated through a project to interconnect the wide
network of waterways, both small and large, throughout the city. For these improvements to be
durable, the focus must be on helping local people to bring about change themselves. See Appendix 8
DESIRE TO REACH A WIDER AUDIENCE
Reaching a wider more diverse audience is a recurring theme in most of the reports and should also be a
priority for the SLLP. Clearly much work is already taking place to reach out to variety of audiences, including
minority groups, limited mobility, health inequalities, new arrivals, youth and the elderly.
“For most people, a single visit to a National Park and its awe-inspiring landscape is enough to connect with
nature and inspire others about it.” MOSAIC – BUILDING CONNECTIONS. The aim of the Campaign for National
Parks’ Mosaic project is to cement long term sustainable engagement between black and minority ethnic
(BME) communities and the National Parks and Youth Hostels Association (YHA). See Appendix 20.
Priority audiences:
SLLP should seek to work with existing organisations that have good reach into their target audiences. These
groups will benefit from SLLP’s support in how to engage their memberships with the landscape and
heritage. Supporting and training local organisations will create a more lasting effect. In particular, SLLP
should avoid initiatives that would duplicate or undermine existing effort and cause disappointment when
the SLLP programme ends
The following are references:
PDMP - Accessibility – ensure and promote access for the young, inexperienced and those with
limited mobility and health inequalities to overcome barriers to access. Specific strategies to reach
minority groups, schools and young people are listed in the exec summary – see appendix 1.
Outdoor City - Activate sites, groups and individuals to drive participation. Women, BME communities
and people with disabilities have lower participation rates than the average. Strategy - create
‘Recreation Zones’
Recreation zones (identified in Sheffield Lakes Area):
Bradfield/Damflask/Agden
Burbage/Blackamore
Langsett Reservoir
Loxley Valley
Redmires Dams
Rivelin Valley and Dams
Wharncliffe/Greno
5 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

Wyming Brook
LEADER - ensure and promote access for the residents within the LEADER are to enable economic
growth to promote young, inexperienced and those with limited mobility and health inequalities to
overcome barriers to access within projects they support.
LEADER to work in partnership with Mosaic champions to improve access for all under-represented
groups.
Sheffield City Council – Consultation results – see Appendix 7
Improving opportunities for social interaction for people of all ages
Ensuring accessibility to a range of rich heritage
Sheffield’s diverse communities have a strong voice on issues that affect them
Support through engagement opportunities to reduce anti-social behaviour.
Have a clear vision for improving access to those with a limiting long-term illness or
mobility problems.
Improving opportunities for social interaction for people of all ages
#refugeeswelcome - Greenspace sector organisations (relating to parks, nature conservation and the
use of urban public space) aim to be inclusive, but may not understand or know how to address
accessibility issues for refugee users. It is important not only to recognise these contexts and learn
from them, but also to raise aspirations for the potential of parks [and other greenspaces] not only as
a ‘wellbeing resource’, but also as a location of mutual support and local integration.
Visit Peak District and Derbyshire conference reported the ‘purple pound’ is worth in excess of £12bn
to the UK’s economy (Visit England). ‘… Real need for both information (facts) and reassurance’.
54% of disabled people avoid going to new places if they can’t find relevant access info. There has
been a massive uplift in the over 55’s taking domestic holidays. Inbound trips by disabled overseas
tourists is an area in the UK for growth - currently only £38M per year. Domestic overnight trips
currently equates to £3.28Bn.
MOSAIC Matters
found environmental action helped young people become responsible citizens - 6 RSPB
(2013) Para 155
found the majority of young people saw nature as separate from themselves - 7 Pointon
(2013) Para 129
Walkers are Welcome – The local Walkers are Welcome groups from Stocksbridge and Bradfield have
indicated that they would welcome a close involvement with SLLP. Their responses to our survey chime with
our recommendations to work with local groups to build capacity.
Q: Which are the key group(s) that your organisation would seek to engage more?
Answer Bradfield: People with a disability. People with limited access to transport.
Q: Are there any issues that SLLP could help address with its community engagement strategy?
Answer Bradfield: I'm beating the drum on behalf of local on the ground organisations.
Answer Stocksbridge: Share good practice and enable others to build their capacity to identify and adopt good
practice.
6 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

Q: Are there any issues that should be avoided when creating the community engagement strategy?
Answer Stocksbridge: Duplication of effort. Our area of expertise is recreational walking. We have written
almost forty sets of detailed instructions in the local area. These are freely available as downloadable .pdf files
from our website.
Yorkshire Water’s customer research indicates that people accessing their land does not reflect the make-up of
their consumer base. They have an ambition to make this a closer match.
SCHOOLS & YOUNG PEOPLE
Sheffield Lakeland area contains a sharp contrast between rural and urban. Children are growing up in the city
and ‘urban fringe’ without knowledge of the countryside, farming and rural practices, despite having the Peak
District National Park on their doorstep.
Working with schools was mentioned in some of the reports, but without any specific ideas in place. The will is
there to support schools, but low school budgets and the demands of the curriculum make schools a very
difficult audience to address in a generic way. But they are an important audience:
“We find it hard to love what we cannot give a name to. And what we do not love, we will not save!”
Robert McFarlane
“Children spend less time outdoors than prisoners” – Rob McFarlane/BBC
MOSAIC - the majority of young people saw nature as separate from themselves.
The Young Champions project – “The extent to which young people’s involvement had been
embedded in wider National Park policy and practice was also unclear, as some comments in focus
groups suggested that it might not continue. However, steps are being taken to create lasting legacies
from the project.”
The following graphic shows the recommendations that were the published as part of the outcomes of the
MOSAIC Young Champions project. For the full documentation see Appendices 19 - 21
7 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

JUHS – Aim: Help engage schools with Sheffield area’s heritage education offer. Aim, to facilitate
history as a core subject.
PDMP – Aim: work collectively with other organisations, inc SLLP, to create an offer for schools.
LEADER – Aim: support local traditions so they are embedded in a new generation.
SCC Ward Consultation - see appendix 7
To strengthen engagement with young people,
Work with service providers to ensure young people have opportunities around education,
training and work
SLLP has an opportunity to add the framework to the will of other organisations to work with schools, and
deliver projects that marry to the needs of schools in the area.
It is recommended that SLLP approach each local school directly to assess its individual requirements around
outdoor learning – budget; timetable pressure; meeting needs/ requirements of: pupil premium, DSEND,
diversity, British Values. Four local schools have been approached by Chris Smith, SRWT and have indicated
that they are willing to get involved with the Stepping Stones projects.
It is also recommended that projects with a ‘schools’ focus are shared with the organisations above that
have indicated a desire to engage children.
Sheffield Lakeland project plans should consider the legacy and position for young people’s engagement
post project. An understanding of best practice can be gained from the resources resulting from the MOSAIC
project (Appendices 19 – 21)
WORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH OTHER PARTNERS
8 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

At the heart of a landscape scale partnership is collaborative working. The following organisations referenced
the strategic need to take a joined up approach with other local organisations:
PDNPA, JUHS,
Sheffield Outdoor City – intends to collaborate with ‘Move More’ to roll out a participation plan
across the city for Sheffield’s outdoors – the ‘Move More’ 2020 strategy aims to reduce inequalities in
participation by making physical activity an easy choice. An App has been designed. See Appendix 4
LEADER - Work with partners to seek opportunities for improved access to North Sheffield, the Peak
District National Park, Denby Dale and the Wakefield area Bretton etc to attract less represented
audiences. Develop close liaison with Access Forums to enable collaboration between projects and
strengthen access improvements.
Waterways Strategy - See Appendix 8
• Engage and influence those who have the ability to make things happen
• Coordinate existing river regeneration activities and avoid duplication
• Help secure resources both financial and practical for collaborative work
• Propose an initial set of actions to be delivered in partnership
• Provide the links with other initiatives
Moors for the Future:
A lot of resources have been generated by this HLF project, especially around community engagement. Their
project Community Science is an example of best practice in this field. It engages people, raises awareness and
creates capacity to environmental monitoring
Sarah Proctor, “Enabling local communities and visitors to identify, record and monitor the wildlife of
the internationally important blanket bog habitats in the Peak District National Park and South
Pennines, is a great way to build and share our understanding of this landscape. This insight will help
us better protect important habitats and species now and in the future.”
Community Engagement Survey responses:
Stannington Library & Bolsterstone Archaeology & Heritage Group indicated ambitions to work with schools
and young people.
There is a real desire locally to address a wider audience. SLLP has the potential to collaborate and add value
to projects that address access for all. By collaborating with other organisations and supporting existing
community groups, SLLP will ensure that it creates a stronger legacy and does not overlap or undermine
existing initiatives.
BRANDING AND SENSE OF PLACE
Branding can be very useful in landscape scale projects to build cohesion between projects and connect the
various partners involved. For some partnerships it is a worthwhile outcome to build a ‘sense of place’ as a
legacy. On a practical level, branding also offers people a level of comfort that they are in receipt of ‘good
information’.
SRWT have identified a lack of Peak District branding near to Sheffield when entering the area from the east
on A57. The Peak District National Park has a stated aim “to explore ways to maintain, increase and build on
9 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

our boundary signs.” Working together will help connect the urban fringe to the countryside and strengthen
the sense of place.
Peak District National Park: It is no accident that the more familiar wheel-shaped millstone is used by
us as a key visual element in promoting the Peak District National Park. The millstone features in our
boundary markers on key gateway routes into the national park, it also features in our logo. We are
currently exploring ways to maintain, increase and build on our boundary signs.
The following are references to branding:
Sheffield, The Outdoor City, aims to build this brand aiming at residents, businesses and visitors so
that it will be internationally renowned for its outdoor offer; its quality places and outdoor people.
See Appendix 4
Yorkshire Water, the only commercial organisation in the partnership, has explained a need for
people to understand when they are on Yorkshire Water land, and the biodiversity work that is taking
place. This is in response to their consumer surveys. In these instances, co-branding may be possible.
The Sheffield Lakeland area joins Sheffield, The Outdoor City with the Peak District National Park. It is
Waymark’s opinion that building the Sheffield Lakeland brand identity beyond the duration of the project
should not be attempted given these existing strong brands.
During the lifetime of the project it will however be necessary to provide a framework to showcase the work
of the partnership in the Sheffield Lakeland project. It can also be used to signpost people to sources of good
information. The Sheffield Lakeland project name and associated identity can be used to badge this
framework, and additionally should be used by partners to indicate involvement and support for the
project.
ADDRESSING A PERIOD OF UNCERTAINTY
ECONOMIC FACTORS
The following are excerpts on the economic theme:
Transform the city’s long term competitiveness provided by distinctive leisure branding. See
Appendix 3
LEADER - Look to develop links with new communities and BME groups in other locations, e.g. South
and West Yorkshire and engage them in non-traditional areas to support tourism. See Appendix 6
Waterways Strategy - The strategy aims to drive up standards of design and management of the
riverside, benefiting society, the economy and the environment.
A notion that is gaining traction is the negative consequence of restoration work. Terms like ‘artwash’ are
entering the vocabulary – this is the gentrifying effect of arts projects on areas, with the outcome that local
people start to feel alienated or even forced to relocate on economic grounds. SLLP needs to be mindful of this
when engaging with projects or partners on restoration type projects.
10 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

There are planning applications in place within the project boundary, which are inevitably contentious. The
Loxley Valley Protection Society attended the consultation event and completed the questionnaire and
indicated they will be monitoring the work of the SLLP as closely as they do all planning applications.
Sheffield Lakeland should encourage the opportunity to help shape emerging strategies and maximise
provision for nature and the environment. An example from the Churnet Valley Living Landscape
Partnership is their input to shaping the council’s ‘Green Infrastructure Plan’.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Moors for the Future: Community Science project is gathering people together to record valuable information
about how climate change is affecting moorlands.
When we interviewed Moors for the Future it was confirmed that SLLP can adopt the best practice and tools
from this project.
CARBON USAGE
Reports mentioned reducing carbon usage:
The Council aims to provide low carbon solutions and local energy generation. See Appendix 3
SCC Ward consultation - Deliver ways of reducing air pollution through activities such as walking,
cycling etc. See Appendix 7
ECOSYSTEMS SERVICES
Ecosystems services was a subject rarely referenced in the published strategies, possibly because it is a
contentious issue in the Sheffield area which has a history of flooding. Consultation with partners and interest
groups reveals there is conflict over the approach to flood management.
SCC Economic Strategy - The Council will work with Sheffield’s businesses and organisations to help
businesses identify and respond to the risks and opportunities presented by climate change and
extreme weather, particularly flooding, over-heating and drought. See Appendix 3
SCC Climate Change report- The catchment of Sheffield’s rivers has steep upper reaches to the west
and very flat lower reaches to the east, leading to rapid reaction to rainfall and resulting flood events.
– see Appendix 14,
SCC Waterways Strategy is primarily concerned with river corridors and not so much with wider
catchment management issues. – See Appendix 8
Woodlands provide a wide range of ecosystem services. These include provisioning (fuel and fibre),
supporting (soil formation), regulating (climate, flood, noise, and air quality regulation), and cultural
(cultural heritage, amenity, health, recreation and tourism) services. Ecosystem service provision is
sensitive to land management objectives
“Are you involved with the Flood Prevention work? Rewilding the moorland is going to be a lot more
useful than a few concrete barriers through the city.” Survey response See Appendix 23
SLLP could play a significant role in addressing flood management and should aim to:
- extend the community’s understanding of the issue.
11 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

- provide a framework for partner discussion regarding natural flood management, extending to the impact
of the way surrounding upland farms are managed.
TRANSPORT & INFRASTRUCTURE
Report references:
Outdoor City – Aim: Improving infrastructure in the outdoor city – includes green routes running from
city to countryside, branded way marking that is easy to use (for everybody), promotion of public
transport to recreation zones and identifying gaps in provision. See Appendix 4
LEADER - Improve transport and infrastructure to promote access to the area.
Changes to transport and infrastructure across the region may have an impact on projects as they are being
delivered. SLLP ideally needs to be in a position to be responsive to developments.
BREXIT
The effects of Brexit on the farming community is currently uncertain. The UK government is, at the time of
writing, changing the regime in terms of farm payments and subsidies and import/export tariffs. – See
Appendix 13.
NCVO – identified a blame culture surrounding aspects of Brexit that has caused inter-generational
conflict, racism, anti-immigrant feeling, plus, the fluctuation in economic markets and investment
may cause health & wellbeing issues. See Appendix 5
The effects of Brexit on Sheffield Lakeland will need to be reviewed as changes occur because projects may
need to be adjusted to try to mitigate firstly the ill feeling Brexit is causing between communities and
secondly the economic effect on landowners.
GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES
In January 2018 the government published its report “A Green future: our 25 year plan to improve the
environment”. See Appendix 25 for our executive summary
The report’s own summary commits the Government to championing sustainable development and
further elaborates the broad aims of the Plan: "...to deliver cleaner air and water in our cities and rural
landscapes, protect threatened species and provide richer wildlife habitats. It calls for an approach to
agriculture, forestry, land use and fishing that puts the environment first. The Plan looks forward to
delivering a Green Brexit – seizing this once-in-a lifetime chance to reform our agriculture and
fisheries management, how we restore nature, and how we care for our land, our rivers and our
seas."
Overall reaction to the Plan has been mixed. Many have welcomed its ambition and promises on
some specific areas like plastics pollution and sustainable land management, with Dieter Helm (chair
of the Natural Capital Committee) reported to comment that the Plan is “substantive” adding that
“nothing on this scale has been brought forward for at least a decade”. On the other hand, the Plan
has been criticised for making no solid commitments to new legislation and lacking in urgency. The
legal NGO Client Earth has stated that the Plan is “full of empty promises” and called for strong nature
laws as the UK leaves the EU. A Defra media blog from 12 January 2018 stated that the Government
will legislate when needed in relation to individual policy areas.
SLLP needs to be responsive to the development and impacts of this policy.
12 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

SHOULD THERE BE A REFLECTION POINT?
Addressing a period of uncertainty:
The SLLP should factor in a point of reflection mid project.
The Brexit issues may well have an impact on how communities from Sheffield access the areas in question.
The local, regional and national political scenes may well yet have to be played out more and already how
Sheffield is viewed isn't being given good PR with the tree issues.
Green prescribing may soon be better understood by health professionals with more data, case studies and
national coverage of the subject – SLLP may be able to further local initiatives to further the impact on
health & wellbeing
SUMMARY OF SURVEYS REFERENCED
JUHS – Health & Wellbeing survey information (see Appendix 3):
Happiness – a survey demonstrated that 80% of residents say that local heritage makes their areas a better
place to live. 93% say that local heritage has an impact on their personal quality of life. These types of results
have been demonstrated by a huge range of research undertaken. 92% of respondents to a survey said that
historic environment-led regeneration projects had raised pride in their area.
People who visit heritage sites or are involved with heritage activities in their community report higher
happiness scores (3% higher) than those that don’t.
• 35% of heritage volunteers report an increase in self-esteem as a result of
volunteering. Further evidence suggests that community-based heritage projects
enhance social cohesion.
• This well-being gain resultant from access to heritage has been calculated as being
worth £1,646 per person per year.
Sheffield Environmental Movement (SEM) commissioned by the Yorks and Humber HLF to understand why
heritage sites are under used by BAMER. This offers insights to barriers for engagement, learning and
volunteering opportunities.
Not aware of what is available at heritage sites such as built, cultural and natural
They are not aware of the location of heritage sites as these are not well publicised
Heritage sites are not advertised adequately, leading to lack of interest from people from BME
communities
Lack of information about where sites and opportunities are and how to access them
Many BME people are often busy surviving and do not have the luxury of time to get all the
information on locations.
Outdoor City - Women, BME communities and people with disabilities have lower participation rates than the
average. See Appendix 4
Sheffield City Council Community Consultation (current) - Each ward (28) in the city has three councilors who
work to improve things for local people and represent them when decisions are made in the Town Hall. These
13 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

consultations are about local communities and councilors being better informed about the things that are
important to their ‘patches’ and to help focus their attention on specific issues in local neighborhoods. SCC is
currently holding online consultation until February 2018 to help set future priorities.
GROUPS REFERENCED AND CONSULTED:
There are many groups and a lot of initiatives in the area– SLLP need to remain open and adaptable for
additional groups to come on board and contribute. We have consulted with representatives from the
following groups.
Yorkshire Water
Sheffield City Council
Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Environmental Movement
Walkers are welcome
Local Access Forum
Accessible Derbyshire & Cheshire
EQM – tourism
Joined Up Heritage conference
Loxley Valley Protection Society
Sheffield FridayNightRiders group
RefugeesWelcome in Parks (The Sheffield Uni)
Local Innovation Group
Bradfield Parish Council, (Cllr Bagshaw)
Moors for Future – Community Science, Sarah
Proctor
Bradfield Walkers are welcome
Ride Sheffield
Stannington Library
Ramblers – local representative
“I saw a group of muslim women out walking in the countryside and thought this was progress. They didn’t
have a chaperone with them. We need to encourage more young women to feel confident to do this.”
We held a consultation event in Sheffield on 31 st January, inviting key stakeholders and the general public.
The feedback we have received is that local people feel it is important that the urban fringes of the SLLP
boundary are not over urbanized and the landscape within the boundary remains a wild scape where nature is
predominately the key feature. With this in mind, we recommend that volunteers from inside and out of the
SLLP boundary would benefit from future training opportunities to learn about and understand control
mechanisms within a landscape setting.
A survey has been available on the SLLP web site inviting contributions from local organisations to inform the
community engagement process:
“avoid using lower socio-economics as just subjects for research instead of involving them in the entire
research process towards any strategy that advocates to promote opportunities for positive community
engagement that is inclusive and diverse”.
Please see Appendix 23 for details or local organisations and their community engagement priorities
A selection of comments about the area and SLLP’s community engagement plans taken from survey
respondents:
“Stannington TARA residents who are a bit out on a limb, not officially recognised as being part of Stannington
while being their closest township - bit of a social divide.”
“Are there grouse moors in the area? Do they prevent access.”
“People need to feel they have a vested interest in the countryside.”
14 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

“listen to people who live within the SLLP rather than visitors”
“some people would say avoid politics but i wouldn't. Avoid party politics but not issues that are political -
tackle these head on even if they are dynamite, like loss of European social funding after Brexit, or alternative
land use, land banking, building on green belt, lack of affordable housing, impact of austerity policies on
engagement with healthy activities and the great outdoors.”
Please see Appendix 24 for further community comment
CONCLUSIONS
OVERARCHING APPROACH TO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Recommended actions:
Include a focus on Health & Wellbeing
Co-operate with organisations that are already established, particularly in work relating to:
o
o
o
o
BME groups
Schools & young people
Asylum seekers
Socially isolated groups, e.g elderly.
Given the range of projects in the area, look to support and further existing initiatives rather than set
up something new.
Aim to provide a framework within which local organisations can connect and collaborate to extend
their community engagement work and multiply the benefits.
Become a forum in which partners debate locally and nationally important policy-making, e.g
ecosystems services/natural flood management, and evaluate the results of local initiatives to support
increased adoption. Work to make the public more aware of these issues and potential solutions.
Increase the diversity of volunteers. When running projects connecting groups and individuals to
nature, introduce them to volunteering opportunities. Ensure best practice is adopted when working
with volunteers.
Make use of existing resources - Projects should where possible make use of Sheffield-specific Apps
and online resources that are already in existence that could potentially be deployed during the
lifetime of the project to encourage citizen science and general connection with the landscape and
heritage.
Factor in a reflection point to take into account emerging policies and changing economic factors
15 | S t r a t e g i c C o n t e x t f o r C o m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t – W a y m a r k F e b 2018

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Statement of Significance
Community perception of the SLLP area embraces many emotional and perceptual analogies that
describe the area from a wild, open and windswept environ to one of historic significance that
supported the development of industrialisation in the City of Sheffield and beyond its boundaries in
Rotherham and Doncaster using the River Don as the water power and resource of an expanding City
during the 18 th to 20 th C.
Communities see the area as significant as open space for recreation yet a living landscape supporting
many micro businesses. Bradfield is referred to as a ‘chocolate box’ village that is reminiscent of what
Sheffield would have been like many years ago. Also often referred to as hidden secret/ gem in the
wide sense of the National Park.
Traditions in the SLLP form a strong identity for those living and visiting the area - long standing
traditions, unlike the rest of Sheffield, partly due to its rural location. Some of the traditions are family
orientated with links going back generations – Sword Dancing and Local Carols prime examples. It is
loved as a place for relaxation and families. Sports are very traditional – cricket for example – but more
localised sports relevant to the old West Riding such as Knur and Spell exist(ed).
The sense of community in the SLLP for those residents is strong. They consider the tranquillity, sense
of community, historic landscapes, farming, and being a forgotten corner of the National Park to
name a few as what makes this place special for them.
Residents within the SLLP area see themselves as guardians of wildlife and the environment. The open
views/ vistas and concern about the urbanisation of countryside fringes within the Loxley Valley
engender strong opinions in people living closer to the SLLP boundary closest to the main
conurbations.
Those within the NP area have differing planning views to the local authority, especially in recent
times with Highway issues and replacement infrastructure being a concern (street lighting in
Bradfield). Residents and users have differing views on how the built environment should look and is
often a matter of great debate.
Sheffielder’s with long standing links know and use the area but accessibility is an issue. For example
BME groups and residents would like to find out more, but from where? They are not aware that it sits
within a National Park. Those who live there may see this as a means of keeping it a well known secret
and a forgotten National Park area within the wider Yorkshire context – quite often it was remarked
that the Dales and North York Moors are seen as the Yorkshire Parks.
Some limited realisation about the importance of the area regarding water management and how
significant this role plays in climate change is known but could be better interpreted: a place to visit
and enjoy the peace and quiet, silent contemplation.
Although the City has a wide spectrum immigrant and student populations, this landscape is their
picture of a wild English landscape and often their first interaction with a landscape such as the SLLP.
The huge student population in the City explore the area but the iconic locations are still a big draw i.e
Stanage, Chatsworth etc. which are away from the area. There are more BME/ refugee families
exploring the Bradfield area but it is still an underused resource for those in Sheffield. But when

offered the opportunity to access this part of Sheffield, would they respond with wanting to learn
more?
Schools in the vicinity often used other locations away from the Sheffield as study days/ visits and
hadn’t used the immediate vicinity in recent years, however funding cuts and resources etc have
forced a rethink and an opportunity for more local engagement with communities could be sought.

Appendix 1
Peak District National Park Management Plan
An executive Summary focussing on Community Engagement and Participation.
Introduction
The 2012-2017 National Park Management Plan (NPMP) brings together and co-ordinates the work
of the many different partners who help to achieve the purposes and duties of the Peak District
National Park. It the single most important policy document for the national park.
The current NPMP runs to the end of this year (2017) and consultation on the new five year NPMP
ended on 31 July 2017. The findings are currently being compiled. The current vision framework will
remain the same.
Vision Framework
This provides a structured approach to achieve shared ambitions over the next 20 years.
The overall vision is:
The Peak District: where beauty, vitality and discovery meet at the heart of the nation
There are 4 strategic themes flowing from the national parks’ purposes:
A diverse working and cherished landscape
Thriving and vibrant communities
A welcoming and inspiring place
An enterprising and sustainable economy
5 broad ‘signatures’ include a cluster of actions within the NPMP under the strategic themes. The
one relating particularly to participation and engaging audiences is ‘Inspiring Generations’. The
purpose of this signature is to capture the imagination of people especially new audiences. This
includes aspects of learning, education, interpretation and communication to increase
understanding of the national park.
Deliverables:
Develop a Peak District Award – a non academic format with a focus of getting out there and
discover the national park. Aimed at families, schools, young people with special needs and
volunteers.
All Mosaic champions will be recognised as PDNPA volunteers with access to training and
support.
NPMP 2018 - 2023
The new NPMP will keep the vision framework for the next 5 years. Alongside the eight special
qualities, there are eight areas of impact that the NPMP should focus on.
The special qualities define what is distinctive and significant about the PDNP compared with other
parts of the country. The areas of impact are those themes where the actions can make the greatest
impact. The NPMP will have deliverable actions associated with these areas of impact. There are 2
areas that are important for engaging audiences in the Sheffield Lakes LPS.

Area of impact 1: A National Park for everyone. This aims to widen participation by helping to
remove physical and mental barriers, supporting access for all and promoting the health and
wellbeing benefits that this can provide.
Area of impact 3: Encouraging enjoyment and understanding. This is a key purpose of the Peak
District National Park. It is about making the most of opportunities for everyone to enjoy the special
qualities by promoting a sense of harmony and responsibility.
Aspirations for the next 5 years for access and recreation and for learning and outreach include:
Widening Participation
Accessibility – ensure and promote access for the young, inexperienced and those with limited
mobility and health inequalities to overcome barriers to access. Balancing needs of different users is
important as some prefer more challenging routes than others. Also ensure that there is sustainable
integration of transport designed to promote easy access.
Health and wellbeing
Promote the health benefits of outdoor recreation, including implementing a Peak District
National Park programme of interventions for health and wellbeing.
Identify areas where particular management measures are needed in relation to delivering a
high quality visitor experience, safeguarding sensitive environments and maintaining the
integrity of designated sites.
Access for all (refer also to ‘Inspiring Generations’)
Work with partners to seek opportunities for improved access to the Peak District National
Park for less represented audiences.
Promote access for the young, inexperienced and those with limited mobility and health
inequalities to overcome barriers to access.
Incorporate and develop the network of ‘Miles without Stiles’.
Access for all and underrepresented groups
Have a clear vision for improving access to those with a limiting long-term illness or mobility
problems.
To work in partnership with Mosaic champions to improve access for all underrepresented
groups.
Improve transport and infrastructure to remove access as a barrier for why many do not visit
the Peak District National Park.
Possible joint working with local access forums (Miles without Stiles) to enable collaboration
between projects and strengthen access improvements.
Young people
To strengthen engagement with young people, a clear offer to schools is needed that
includes all partners for example The National Trust, Wildlife Trusts, RSPB and Local
Authorities.
Minority Groups
Development of Peak District Mosaic (PDM) and its engagement at a strategic level (e.g.
South West Peak project, Moors for the Future, Sheffield Lakes LPS and other emerging
landscape partnerships).

PDM to develop links with a wider group of stakeholders, key contacts in other partner
organisations such as YHA, farmers, Friends of the Peak, other local businesses, Wildlife
Trusts and other local forums and working groups.
More information on ‘what to see and do in the area’ to encourage BME participation in a
wide range of recreation and learning activities that raise the profile of national parks.
Specific information developed for targeted communities (including looking at providing this
in other languages).
Organising/promoting special events of interest to target under-represented communities.
Develop a programme of exchange visits or twinned communities for residents and nonresident
communities to share understanding and build up knowledge of each other (food
has been suggested as a good theme).
Look to develop links with new communities and BME groups in other locations, e.g. South
West Peak is a positive way to develop work in Stoke, Macclesfield and Stockport. Sheffield
Lakes LPS to develop work in Sheffield.

Appendix 2
Sheffield Heritage Strategy Plan
An executive summary
Introduction
Joined Up Heritage Sheffield (JUHS) is a representative body which has a diverse
membership of local people who are united by a desire to champion the city’s rich heritage.
We share a desire to empower everyone in Sheffield to take an interest in the city’s diverse
and fascinating heritage, understand their city’s past and shape their desire and ability to
influence the future development of this important local resource.
The aim is to work together to develop a better resourced, better connected and better
communicated heritage offer, relevant to a wide range of audiences.
The strategy also aims to develop resources and deliver activities that have the potential to:
1. Increase local, regional and national awareness of the Sheffield area’s heritage stories,
sites and assets, bringing people to the city and making a positive contribution to the visitor
economy.
2. Grow new audiences which reflect the diversity of the Sheffield area.
3. Encourage volunteering.
4. Bring together the city’s diverse heritage partners in a more co-ordinated and strategic
fashion.
5. Help engage schools with Sheffield area’s heritage education offer.
6. Explore and develop strategic links and initiatives between history, heritage, city
economy, communities, health and well-being.
7. Offer opportunities for effective networking between individuals, local community
heritage groups and other relevant organisations and initiatives.
The vision for a Heritage Strategy for Sheffield is ultimately one which seeks to improve
understanding of and access to heritage, creating a greater sense of ownership over the
city’s identity and empowerment in making a contribution to it. This includes the physical
historic environment inherited from the past and the present cultural influences which shape
people’s identities now.
The Strategy will do this by forging new opportunities with the Council, and other partners, to
enable community-led heritage stewardship, break down barriers to positive action, and
ensure that heritage is embedded in local decision-making and strategic planning. It will also
be a platform to tell the story of the city and celebrate what makes Sheffield great – the
people and the places, the history, the culture, and the environment. Sheffield Lakeland has
a wealth of built and natural heritage that forms some of the most significant untouched
heritage that remains within the City’s boundary that reflects the community history that can
be identified wat back.
Vision Framework
This document sets out the vision for a co-produced Heritage Strategy for Sheffield with
communities at the core delivery and participation of the vision. The
Strategy will enable communities and local groups to influence the development of policies
designed to support managed change to the historic environment and increase opportunities
for people to get involved, improve access to funding, and enable greater community-led
heritage stewardship.
Proposals outlined in this document are designed to provide benefits to the city’s heritage.
The strategy document sets out the group’s aspirational proposals for how the Strategy will
be developed, in collaboration with local communities and these other important
stakeholders. The final Strategy will be agreed through a public consultation and ‘have your
say’ process to be held in due course.

Widening Participation
Accessibility – a survey within the document has demonstrated that 80% of residents say
that local heritage makes their areas a better place to live. 93% say that local heritage has
an impact on their personal quality of life. These types of results have been demonstrated by
a huge range of research undertaken. 92% of respondents to a survey said that historic
environment-led regeneration projects had raised pride in their area.
Health and wellbeing
People who visit heritage sites or are involved with heritage activities in their community
report higher happiness scores (3% higher) than those that don’t.
35% of heritage volunteers report an increase in self-esteem as a result of
volunteering. Further evidence suggests that community-based heritage projects
enhance social cohesion.
This well-being gain resultant from access to heritage has been calculated as being
worth £1,646 per person per year.
The Strategic body believe that participation in heritage activities promotes social
relationships, empowerment, and improved happiness. The Strategy will
maximise opportunities for heritage to be used as a tool for creating social benefit.
Access for all
Heritage is an important commodity in a successful city. The Strategy will seek opportunities
that will deliver tangible benefits and enhance narratives which motivate people to visit the
city, attract businesses, and provide a backdrop for vibrant cultural and retail offers.
Work with partners to seek opportunities for improved access to the built heritage for less
represented audiences.
Promote access for the young, inexperienced and those with limited mobility and health
inequalities to overcome barriers to access through programmes.
Access for all and underrepresented groups, and minority groups
The Strategy will reflect diversity, champion cohesion, and promote a
sense of pride of place in the city by seeking to explore all kinds of stories and heritage
identities, from local neighbourhoods to religious and immigrant communities. This supports
the HLF concept to broaden heritage to underrepresented groups by the research
undertaken by Sheffield Environmental Movement (SEM) commissioned by the Yorks and
Humber HLF to understand why heritage sites are under used by BAMER
Young people
To strengthen engagement with young people and through schools using the XXXXX group
to facilitate history as a core subject.
Develop links with a wider group of stakeholders, key contacts in other partner organisations
such as local history groups, conservation organisations, local businesses, Wildlife Trusts
and other local forums and working groups.
Specific information developed for targeted communities and projects.
Organising/promoting special events of interest to target under-represented communities
including heritage Open days to promote young people to appreciate the local heritage.
Look to develop links with new communities and BME and new arrival groups in other
locations in the City to broaden their knowledge.

Appendix 3
Sheffield Economic Strategy
An executive Summary
Introduction
Sheffield is a creative, inventive and energetic city. It is one of the UK’s major city economies
with internationally recognised, leading edge talents in manufacturing, engineering and
design. The city’s authentic and independent character is reflected in an aptitude for
generating bright ideas, an inquisitive and innovative spirit, and a deserved reputation for
getting things done. Sheffield is the core city at the heart of the Sheffield City Region and is
committed to being a driving force for growth across the wider economic area. The city’s
economic geography stretches across Barnsley, Bassetlaw, Bolsover, Chesterfield,
Doncaster, Derbyshire Dales, North East Derbyshire and Rotherham, through its workforce
and supply chains. The economic prosperity of Sheffield and the wider city region is of
critical importance to secure long term competiveness and sustainable economic growth.
A Refreshed Strategy
This economic growth strategy for Sheffield is a refresh of the 2008 Masterplan, retaining its
ambition yet refocusing its strategy towards economic interventions that will drive economic
growth in the short and medium term, whilst continuing to strengthen the city’s economic
foundations to secure Sheffield’s long term competitiveness and economic prosperity.
six economic objectives
built on Sheffield’s market leading businesses and strong local supply chains that will
drive growth and innovation to transform the city’s long term competitiveness
provided by distinctive leisure branding.
A
Future Proof
with a productive, competitive and growing business base that harnesses the energy
and potential of our SMEs and creates a strong pipeline of new businesses
that sets Sheffield apart from other cities, underpinned by a business focused skills
system that provides the skills that the economy needs to grow
that delivers critical connectivity, development and sustainability to support economic
growth
An Inclusive Economy
that supports people to achieve their full potential and take part in the economic and
cultural life of the city
A High Profile
that showcases the city’s vibrant culture, creativity and energy, promoting Sheffield
and the wider city region as a great place to live, work, invest and visit

Delivering a fit for purpose 21 st century city centre and access
Sheffield’s city centre is vital to the future success of the city region, providing high quality
retail, a strong cultural offer, a centre for knowledge based, professional services, creative
and digital industries and an effective transport interchange.
Riverside Business District as well as key sites around Sheffield station.
Castlegate – We will create a vision for the transformation of the Castlegate quarter
and attractions.
City centre living - We will look to widen the type of housing available around the city
centre, to encourage new city centre neighbourhoods. Getting people out into the
countryside in North Sheffield
Transport – We need to improve the attractiveness of public transport to further
encourage modal shift to public transport, walking and cycling.
Cultural offer - The Surrey Street building containing the Central Library, Library
Theatre and the Graves Gallery is the next priority for cultural capital investment, alongside
the refresh of the Cultural Industries Quarter. We need to support the visitor economy,
by providing events and animation, entertainment, retail choice and accommodation.
Strengthen the ‘Steel Route’ from The Moor to Victoria Quays and Wicker to
better connect our cultural assets and city centre offer.
Building a sustainable, low carbon city
We will ensure that Sheffield’s growth is sustainable by investing in the city’s energy supply,
water, waste, telecommunications and flood management systems to ensure they are
resilient to the impacts of climate change and provide low carbon solutions and local energy
generation.
Improving and strengthening the city’s supporting infrastructure in this way will deliver a
stronger, more sustainable and balanced local economy.
Sheffield City Council’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy will set out a framework to
ensure that Sheffield is more resilient to the impacts of climate change, both in the present
and the future.
In the last ten years Sheffield has experienced major flooding events, heat waves, strong
winds and snow and ice events, all of which caused disruption to the city and brought with
them an economic cost. At the same time, climate change can bring opportunities and if
Sheffield is on the forefront of managing the risks associated with climate change, this will
prove attractive to inward investment. The Council will work with Sheffield’s businesses and
organisations to help businesses identify and respond to the risks and opportunities
presented by climate change and extreme weather, particularly flooding, over-heating and
drought.

Protecting business through effective city wide flood management
A partnership between Sheffield City Council, Rotherham MBC, SCR LEP, the Environment
Agency, DEFRA, Yorkshire Water, Sheffield Chamber and key businesses will work together
to secure funding for and deliver comprehensive flood defences across the city’s key
economic areas - through the Sheaf and Porter Valleys in the city centre, and through the
Sheffield-Rotherham Don Valley (including the Upper Don Valley).
This will give existing companies confidence to grow and expand and give potential investors
the confidence to choose to base themselves in the area instead of in other locations.
Protection from flooding gives the local economy a strong and secure foundation.
Maximising the impact of the
Sheffield Brand
The city’s marketing strategy determines how and where we sell Sheffield, it is the
main mechanism for telling the world about the type of city Sheffield is and aspires to
be. A priority in the 2008 Economic Masterplan was to develop a coherent brand is
entity for the city. Marketing Sheffield led this activity on behalf of the city and we now
have a strong ‘Sheffield’ brand that is distinctive, and underpinned by values that
reflect the city’s character. The key point for the SLLP is referred to in
Tourism – To build on our strong cultural, sporting and events offer and our
distinctive urban-rural location to attract more UK and international visitors into
Sheffield to boost the city’s visitor economy. This has provided a solid framework for
establishing the brand. We will need to go further and use it to build a coherent and
co-ordinated approach across city partners to establish a strong, memorable and
consistent story about Sheffield and the wider city region.
The strategy states ‘We need to come together to identify the key messages, ‘attack’
brands, products/ assets and events which we can promote under each of these

audiences, but more importantly we need to identify the new things we want to bring
to or develop in Sheffield to help propel the city’s reputation for Trade, Talent and
Tourism internationally to 2020’.
These assets and activities have attracted millions of visitors to the city each year, feeding
our growing Tourism, Leisure and Sport sector – which accounts for over 50,000 jobs across
the SCR (over 16,000 Sheffield).
The challenge is to take the Sheffield Brand, underpinned by the city’s cultural and natural
assets, events, and combine them cohesively to make Sheffield and the wider city region a
high profile destination to do business, to visit, to live and work.
Unlocking the economic value of culture
Culture and the creative economy are providers of jobs, drivers for the visitor
economy and are vital in shaping the city’s identity and positioning itself for the
future.
The strategy aims to capitalise on the distinctive urban/rural location and range of
quality assets, by building on relationships with national bodies such as Visit Britain
and Visit England and with regional tourism bodies such as Visit Peak District and
Welcome to Yorkshire. The tourism, leisure and sport sector and Cultural Consortium
are key partners to ensure that Sheffield successfully competes with other major
cities as a hub for culture and creativity and has a growing visitor economy. The
intention of the strategy states it will continually develop the cultural offer – ‘investing
in the city’s cultural assets and delivering fresh content, events and ideas. This
includes investing in the physical infrastructure that underpins our cultural offer’.
Positioning the city as a major cultural player demands the city to work and invest
together to develop a strategic approach to sustain and grow the city’s cultural
infrastructure and organisations – developing the systems, partnerships, financial
mechanisms and infrastructure to unlock the economic value of culture.
Supporting the culture sector to explore commercial models that harnesses the
economic benefits invest in them to do more and better things in the city to further
propel the cultural offer and Sheffield’s profile is recognised. The strategy supports
the idea to find the right mechanisms for Sheffield, such as Business Improvement
Districts and Tourism Business Improvement Districts, which will put the city’s
marketing and culture offer on a new trajectory for 2020. The SLLLP would support
this.
Destination Management Plan and widening participation
There are opportunities for city region partners to work more closely together to
attract greater numbers of UK and overseas visitors by promoting Sheffield as a
destination for business and leisure tourism, conferences and major events.
To create a successful and sustainable visitor economy for Sheffield, all the
components that make a successful destination need to be managed in an integrated
and long-term way, with a clear focus on the needs of residents, businesses and
visitors. Stakeholders in the city have a key role to play in contributing to a vibrant
city experience.
Building on our current partnerships we will bring stakeholders together to develop a
Destination Management Plan, to increase collaboration and coordination and to take
a strategic approach to destination management, working to the common purpose of
making Sheffield a high profile city, known for its creativity and energy – and the
talented people, businesses and cultural assets that make the city an amazing place
to be.

Unlocking the economic value of culture for health and wellbeing
Working in partnership with the Cultural Consortium and the tourism, leisure and
sport LEP sector group we will develop a strategic approach and future vision for the
cultural sector across the Sheffield City Region and unlock the economic value of
culture and support the benefits of a City that has multiple benefits for the workers,
residents, visitors and businesses .

Appendix 4
Sheffield: the Outdoor City Strategy
Introduction and background
Sheffield has a unique outdoor recreation offer as the only major city in the UK with a National Park
within its boundary and with a topography of rolling hills, rivers, deep valleys of reservoirs and
gritstone rock.
The three year strategy aims to encourage a joined up approach from organisations and individuals
involved in outdoor recreation in the city in order to more effectively plan future work.
Not only are there considerable health benefits from being outdoors, there are also economic
impacts. Sheffield’s consumer spending on outdoor equipment is over 3 times the national average.
The sector also provides valuable employment but also outdoor-related volunteering is strong in
Sheffield. The city also hosts major events to attract more visitors and being uniquely positioned
within the Peak District National Park, can offer the best of both worlds – the outdoor experience
and a vibrant city break.
A key element within the Strategy is to raise participation. The ‘Move More’ activity strategy aims to
make Sheffield the most active city in the UK by 2020. Outdoor recreation plays an important role in
reducing health inequalities. Walking and running do not need expensive equipment or access to
specialist facilities. The rise in ‘lifestyle sports’ is popular with younger people.
Vision and Mission
Vision: Sheffield, The Outdoor City, will be internationally renowned for its outdoor offer; its quality
places and outdoor people.
Mission: To grow the brand ‘The Outdoor City’ by investing in places that appeal and attract, aligned
with supporting infrastructure that enables residents, businesses and visitors to have easy access to
high quality outdoor recreation experiences.
Four strategic themes (based on the vision)
1. Growing the brand
2. Places that appeal and attract
3. Infrastructure to support a quality experience
4. Activate sites, groups and individuals to drive participation
All four themes are important in raising participation as the whole emphasis is on a solid brand
identity that everyone can recognise. However, themes 2 and 4 are of particular relevance for
engaging different audiences in outdoor recreation.
Theme 2 focuses on outdoor destinations based on natural landscapes. There are internationally
renowned areas such as Stanage Edge and also ‘hidden gems’ where places are not widely known
about. Sheffield aims to ensure there is breadth in outdoor provision whilst not compromising the
environment’s natural and cultural assets.

This theme aims to create ‘recreation zones’ to take a strategic approach in investment. This will
balance where infrastructure is needed for facilities as well as where investment is needed to
protect the environment from increased usage.
Recreation zones (identified in Sheffield Lakes Area):
Bradfield/Damflask/Agden
Burbage/Blackamore
Langsett Reservoir
Loxley Valley
Redmires Dams
Rivelin Valley and Dams
Wharncliffe/Greno
Wyming Brook
Theme 4 focuses on driving participation. It is varied across the city but those from more
disadvantaged backgrounds: women, BME communities and people with disabilities have lower
participation rates than the average. ‘Activating’ sites, groups and individuals is about providing
facilities for those less confident about outdoor recreation and thus giving them the confidence.
Local school children can be introduced to a mountain biking facility for example.
The outcomes
One key driver is to raise participation (with additional health benefits). The outcome is an increase
in Sheffield people involved in outdoor recreation across a range of outdoor activities and amongst
all social groups.
What the strategy aims to deliver in Year 1 and where it is applicable to the Sheffield Lakes LPS
There are 10 key actions in the first year. The ones below are of relevance to engaging different
audiences within the Sheffield Lakes LPS:
3. Creating Outdoor Recreation Zones – see above
4. Improving infrastructure in the outdoor city – includes green routes running from city to
countryside; branded way marking that is easy to use (for everybody); promote public transport to
recreation zones and identify gaps in provision.
5. Run, walk, climb, cycle: activity plans for Sheffield’s core recreational pursuits – make walking and
running route accessible for all (13 routes established – check if any in SLLPS). For climbing, the
climbing sector will identify opportunities for youth participation.
6. Pilot innovative solutions to measuring participation – establish a monitoring system through
research centres such as the National Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine and others located in
the city can develop this.
8. Collaborate with ‘More Move’ to roll out a participation plan across the city for Sheffield’s
outdoors – the ‘More Move’ 2020 strategy aims to reduce inequalities in participation by making
physical activity an easy choice.
9. Youth participation – promotes the health benefits but also future business owners, event
organisers, volunteers etc.

Appendix 5
Brexit : Implications for the Voluntary Sector
An executive Summary
Introduction
NCVO’s first overview of Brexit for voluntary organisations was to comment that communities would
likely suffer under any Brexit deal:
• It is likely that the impact of Brexit in the short term will be over-estimated; but impact in the longterm
will be under-estimated
• Our analysis focuses on risks: but amidst much uncertainty our commentary requires many
assumptions. These may change.
• In particular, there are different Brexit scenarios –such as whether the UK remains in the single
market. We will reflect on these in our next overview.
Implications to the statement they issued :
Health and wellbeing
Markets are volatile: falls in sterling and UK stock exchanges followed the result; loss of AAA rating;
the Bank of England has stepped in to reassure investors
•Forecasters: recession likely as inward investment to the UK likely to fall, some firms starting to
relocate staff away from the UK.
•Forecasters: further cuts to public services, tax rises or both could be on the cards, though no
emergency budget before new PM in place
•Uncertainty will hit investment levels (and future growth)
Access for all, Minority and underrepresented groups
A NATION DIVIDED?
A close referendum result has exposed divisions in society (age, education, income) that do
not easily map onto traditional party politics. SLLP will engage across a wide breadth of residents,
visitors and students helping break down barriers.
Anecdotal evidence of post-referendum rise in social tensions, with reports of racist
incidents across the country – SLLP may find this project helps to promote good relationships.

Some signs of inter-generational conflict as young and old simultaneously blamed for Brexit
– SLLP landscape discussions and learning should support better intergenerational
“Museums are ideally placed to host these conversations with their local communities.”-Sharon Heal,
Museums Association
•One of the most troubling aspects of the EU referendum was divisive rhetoric that some have used
to inflame racial tensions –civil society must be unanimous in its condemnation of racism
•As a sector with roots in local communities and communities of interest, we must play our part in
bringing people together to discuss their hopes and concerns for the future
•In months ahead, we have a duty to help lead our communities and not just our organisations
Sir Stuart Etherington, NCVO: “My message today is that you should consider what more you
can do to bring communities together. Outreach and inclusivity matters now more than
ever…The sector’s voice will be essential in speaking up and shaping the future.”
•Julia Unwin, JRF: “Inertia and apathy towards the plight of the worst-off won’t be
tolerated. We need to look long and hard at how politics and prosperity work in Britain.
Politicians across the spectrum must ensure no one is left behind for so long ever again.”
•Jeremy Taylor, National Voices: “We will continue to champion the development of more
preventative, coordinated, people-centred approaches to health and care. Our sector will
continue to stand up for and work with the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our
society.”
•David Nussbaum, WWF-UK: “Leaving the European Union brings risks and uncertainties for
our wildlife and wild places, but with the right policies the UK could continue to be a global
force for the protection of nature.”

Appendix 6
East Peak Leader Strategic Review Plan
An executive summary
Introduction
East Peak Innovation Partnership Board – supports 4 Local Action Groups
North Sheffield
Penistone and District
Denby Dale and Kirkburton
South West Wakefield
The East Peak Innovation Partnership (EPIP) is a not for profit rural regeneration organisation
established in 2008. The chief aim of the East Peak Innovation Partnership is to improve the quality
of life for the communities of the East Peak LEADER area by, inter alia:
Improving or maintaining rural services and infrastructure;
Promoting and supporting village renewal and development whilst endeavouring to
maintain rural character and tranquillity;
Promoting, for the benefit of the public, the preservation, conservation and upgrading of
rural heritage; and,
Promoting access to and the enjoyment and understanding of the beauty of the East Peak
area and to promote and develop the potential for multi-recreational use for the benefit of
communities
Vision Framework
As part of the last LEADER Programme three geographically based Local Innovation Groups (LIGs)
covering the entire LEADER area. The purpose of the LIGs was set out in the last LDS as ‘the key
mechanism for enabling local people and organisations to be part of the decision making process,
and ensure projects that are taken forward are meaningful and beneficial to the East Peak
communities’ (EPIP, 2008, p.11).
It has been noted by the European Commission that ‘in order to fulfil its mission, the Leader
approach must be as accessible as possible to anyone with the required level of commitment and
innovative spirit’ (European Commission, 2011, p. 16). Membership of any of the LIGs is open to
anyone with an interest in being involved in the delivery of the LEADER programme. Each of the LIGs
played a vital role in shaping the last LEADER programme bringing valuable local knowledge and a
genuine ‘bottom up’ approach which a smaller, more strategic LAG on its own would have found
impossible to the same degree. The LIGs have continued to operate through the Transition Period in
2014 and have helped to shape the new LDS. Membership of the LAG is drawn from the LIGs either
through election or co-option.
An additional LIG operates in this phase of funding with representation from rural communities in
South West Wakefield (approximately 8,961 people) in this part of the LEADER area. Each of the
existing LIGs represent populations in excess of 20,000 people. If a separate LIG cannot operate,
businesses, community organizations, Parish Councils.
The LAG has also been supported at its meetings by a number of local authority officers who have
acted as advisors (without formal decision-making powers). It is intended that these arrangements
will continue although Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (as Accountable Body) will have a
formal role in project appraisal and selection.
Arrangements for continuing engagement with LEPs are still to be finalised although LEP
representatives will be able to participate in LAG meetings, if appropriate. Consultation with Leeds
City Region LEP during the development of the LDS has indicated a preference for separate regular

liaison meetings between the LEP and LAGs in the City Region to monitor the progress of LEADER
programmes rather than formal representation from the LEP on LAGs.
The LAG will continue to be the decision-making body for the LEADER programme and will
recommend approval of support for individual projects to the Accountable Body (subject to its own
appraisal) and Defra. The LIGs, where appropriate, fulfil an advisory role and are able to make
recommendations to the LAG to improve project proposals prior to final appraisal and/or to fix
additional conditions on grant offers.
The LAG has established written procedures in place to deal with potential conflicts of interest. It
operates under strict constitutional rules governing the required quorum for LAG meetings which
ensures there is appropriate representation from each sector and from each part of the LAG area.
These rules also ensure that the required balance of representation among LAG members from
different sectors is maintained. A Chair and Vice-Chair are elected annually and both will continue to
receive support in undertaking these roles from the LAG and from LAG and Accountable Body staff.
Widening Participation
Accessibility
ensure and promote access for the residents within the LEADER are to enable economic
growth to promote young, inexperienced and those with limited mobility and health
inequalities to overcome barriers to access within projects they support.
Health and wellbeing
Promote the health benefits of outdoor recreation, including implementing a Outdoor
programme of events mainly linked to the projects that have been supported. In particular
Walkers are Welcome.
Support the intervention of funds to support the delivery of a high quality visitor experience,
safeguarding sensitive environments and maintaining the integrity of designated sites.
Access for all
Work with partners to seek opportunities for improved access to North Sheffield, the Peak
District National Park, Denby Dale and the Wakefield area Bretton etc to attract less
represented audiences.
Incorporate and develop the network of outdoor experiences through the measures.
Access for all and underrepresented groups
Promotion of access for all through its opportunities to develop economic growth..
To work in partnership with Mosaic champions to improve access for all underrepresented
groups.
Improve transport and infrastructure to promote access to the area.
Possible joint working with local walking groups and in particular Walkers Are Welcome in
Bradfield, Denby Dale and Stocksbridge. Develop close liaison with Access Forums to enable
collaboration between projects and strengthen access improvements.
Young people
To strengthen engagement with young people and support local traditions so they are
embedded in a new generation.
Minority Groups
Look to develop links with new communities and BME groups in other locations, e.g. South
and West Yorkshire and engage them in non traditional areas to support tourism.

Appendix 7
Sheffield City Council Area Ward priorities
An executive summary.
Introduction
SCC like to know what people living in Sheffield feel should be the priorities for their ward
councilors. Each ward (28) in the city has three councilors who work to improve things for local
people and represent them when decisions are made in the Town Hall.
Vision Framework
These consultations are about local communities and councilors being better informed about the
things that are important to their ‘patches’ and to help focus their attention on specific issues in
local neighborhoods. SCC is currently holding online consultation until February 2018 to help set
future priorities.
Previous consultation has generally a number of themes and threads running through them and to
link them to the SLLP is summed up using the headings below
Widening Participation
Encourage neighbourhoods to work together and build community resilience
Matching volunteers to project and ensuring people are aware of services on offer.
Accessibility
Improving opportunities for social interaction for people of all ages
Improving access to parks and open spaces for all
Ensuring accessibility to a range of rich heritage
Health and wellbeing
Promote the health benefits of outdoor recreation in open spaces and parks.
Identify areas where particular management measures are needed in relation to delivering
environmental improvements to reduce traffic issues and general street scene issues.
Deliver ways of reducing air pollution through activities such as walking, cycling etc
Access for all
Work with partners to seek opportunities for improved access to open spaces.
Promote access for area to overcome lack of opportunities.
Under represented groups
Have a clear vision for improving access to those with a limiting long-term illness or mobility
problems.
Improve digital skills to access information
Young people
To strengthen engagement with young people,
Work with service providers to ensure young people have opportunities around education,
training and work
Minority Groups

Sheffield’s diverse communities have a strong voice on issues that affect them
Support through engagement opportunities to reduce anti-social behaviour.

Appendix 8
Sheffield Waterways Strategy
An executive summary
Introduction
This strategy proposes a 10-year vision (2014-2024) for Sheffield’s waterways and introduces an
action plan for the coming 5-year period (2014-2019). It builds on existing achievements and
ongoing activities, and it supports new work where action is needed. There are immediate initiatives
to address urgent problems and more strategic initiatives to tackle longer-term and intractable
issues.
It is not a strategy that relates solely to environment, the Waterways Strategy Group is firmly of the
opinion that there are benefits to all aspects of life in the city. It is however primarily concerned with
river corridors and not so much with wider catchment management issues. The strategy is not
intended to be the nuts and bolts of how to fix everything that needs doing, its purpose is to:
• Open people’s minds to the possibilities
• Engage and influence those who have the ability to make things happen
• Coordinate existing river regeneration activities and avoid duplication
• Help secure resources both financial and practical for collaborative work
• Propose an initial set of actions to be delivered in partnership
• Provide the links with other initiatives
There is great synergy with the recently published Green and Open Space Strategy and whilst there
are inevitably some areas of overlap, there are also benefits in dealing with waterways separately.
The waterways that lead out of the Sheffield Lakeland boundary have a distinct part to play in
developing this strategy for people and nature. The rivers are an integral part of the City’s history
and its growth during the 18 th , 19 th and 20 th centuries and community interest in them is perhaps at
an all time high (15,000 members on Sheffield History Facebook site alone). So much needs to be
done across the two areas of river regeneration and green space regeneration that there are also
benefits in breaking the work down into two more manageable parts. Clearly, careful coordination is
required and it is useful to consider waterways regeneration and green space regeneration as being
united under the wider aims of green infrastructure development.
Good progress has already been achieved in regenerating our rivers to the benefit of communities,
businesses and nature but much of this work remains largely unknown and there is much more still
to be done.
Vision Framework
Nevertheless, many Sheffielders and visitors are largely unaware of how many rivers and other
water bodies there are of the part that they have played in developing the shape, the heritage and
the culture of the city that we know today. In recent times, local rivers haven’t been used well, we
have largely ignored what they have to offer and in many cases destroyed much that would now be
valuable. The strategy goes onto say ‘however, still many good things about the rivers that we can
build on to develop the Sheffield story. We have over 150 miles of flowing watercourses in five main
valleys that converge in the city centre, our rivers link communities; nowhere in Sheffield is far from
a river.’
Rivers are integral to Sheffield’s topography and its structure, especially its green spaces and built
environments. Watercourses help link the city with the countryside and provide the community with

valuable access to open spaces and recreation. These rivers help create places with strong character
and distinctive identity. They are associated with Sheffield’s rich industrial history and heritage, the
appreciation of which is growing rapidly among local people and visitors alike. The Western river
parkways offer highly successful models of river regeneration and mature management involving a
broad range of stakeholders. Sheffield’s Lakeland Landscape Project is form an important driver to
enact much of the stategy.
Widening Participation
Perhaps the single most important job of this Strategy is to engage the people of Sheffield in the
care of all of our waterways. We will work with local communities to seek funds to deliver local ‘river
rescue plans.’ This will be co-ordinated through a project to interconnect the wide network of
waterways, both small and large, throughout the city. For these improvements to be durable, the
focus must be on helping local people to bring about change themselves.
Projects will be supported preferentially where they have the wide engagement of the local
community. This will not only involve physical work but will include also efforts relating to local
history, education, training and work experience. We will support the voluntary and business sectors
and work with local people to prepare action plans identifying their own priorities. Practical jobs will
include addressing issues such as keeping places clear of litter and debris, restoring canalised rivers
and removing culverts, looking after archaeological sites and providing habitats for wildlife. The
strategy will work with a range of partners to provide guidance and to help raise funding for this
work. At the strategic level it will also welcome new partners to work with the Sheffield Waterways
Strategy Group. It proposes to retain an inclusive and open approach, built on mutual respect and
valuing the input of equal partners. The strategy will also retain a key focus on working with people
who can deliver real improvements ‘on the ground., also maintain efficient yet legitimate
governance processes, ensuring that decisions are fair, efficient and accountable, and will keep
strong ties with leaders in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors – these arrangements to be
formalised through partners signing up to a ‘City of Rivers’ partnership agreement.
Accessibility – ensure and promote access for the young, inexperienced and those with limited
mobility and health inequalities to overcome barriers to access. Balancing needs of different users is
important as some prefer more challenging routes than others. Also ensure that there is sustainable
integration of transport designed to promote easy access.
Health and wellbeing
Promote the health benefits of outdoor recreation, including implementing interventions for health
and wellbeing from many City Centre organisations, groups and residents.
Sheffield’s green and open spaces are places for everyone to use and enjoy. They are
also places that improve our environment and quality of life. Sheffield’s rivers provide one of the
strongest links that enable people to connect with these spaces. With sensitive development and the
engagement of local people, they can add value to quality of life in many ways, including better
health, leisure and recreation opportunities, sporting activities, social engagement and perhaps most
importantly, stronger and more prosperous communities.
Access for all
At the heart of the strategy is the challenge to maintain, develop and celebrate what
makes Sheffield so special – its communities, places and culture.
The quality of the urban environment in the centre of Sheffield has never been better, setting a new
benchmark for public realm. However, with a few exceptions, the riverside environment falls far
below this standard. The strategy aims to drive up standards of design and management of the
riverside, benefiting society, the economy and the environment. Successful delivery of the strategy
will also create a city image that has a resonance with investors and decision makers, a distinctive

offer that combines best of urban living with access to a superb outdoor environment, providing the
best quality of life in any UK city.
The economic value of public spaces in Sheffield is well documented; a high quality public
environment is an essential part of any regeneration strategy, impacting positively on the
local economy particularly by encouraging investment and the creation of jobs. In less favoured
parts of the city, restored waterways will act as one of the catalysts to regeneration. The important
environmental benefits that our rivers bring to urban areas will be much improved with greater
opportunity for people to be close to nature. Wildlife corridors and natural habitats will be
protected, extended and joined up as part of a concerted greening programme. Re-naturalised river
corridors will help develop the city’s resilience to climate change, slowing flood waters, helping cool
the city and providing new and alternative wildlife habitats.
Access for all and underrepresented groups
Better managed and more visited public spaces will help to reduce crime rates and allay people’s
fears of crime.
Well designed and maintained riverside places will bring communities together, providing meeting
opportunities in the right context and fostering social ties – creating new forms of transport links
whether this is footpath, bridleway etc.
One of the fundamental benefits arising from better connected river corridors will be to allow
people to move around without the challenge of reconciling the needs of different modes of
transport.
New riverside neighbourhoods will provide homes, workspace, cultural and educational
opportunities in a memorable and productive landscape setting. Cultural assets and venues will be
created from the retention and re-use of buildings, not only those of architectural merit but also the
workaday buildings where so much of Sheffield’s history was enacted.
SLLP and the Sheffield River Stewardship scheme have an ideal opportunity to work closely on the
delivery of this.
Young people
Well maintained public spaces will help improve physical and mental health, encouraging more
people to take opportunities to become active. The experience of the natural environment will
provide children and young people with opportunities for fun, exercise and learning.
Minority Groups
Offers direct links into the more urban conurbations of Sheffield where BAMER groups tend to live
and therefore the strategy offers ideal opportunities to promote through Sheffield Environmental
Movement and other groups ways in which they can explore the north of the city.

#refugeeswelcome in parks:
a resource book
– ideas for refugee integration
and wellbeing
– how parks and urban public
space can be more welcoming
to refugees and asylum seekers
1

Clare Rishbeth,
Dominika Blachnicka-Ciacek,
Radhika Bynon
and Tobias Stapf
Cite as: Rishbeth, C., Blachnicka-
Ciacek, D., Bynon, R. and Stapf, T. (2017)
#refugeeswelcome in parks: a resource
book. Sheffield, The University of
Sheffield.
First published in the United Kingdom
in 2017 by The University of Sheffield.
Copyright resides with The University
of Sheffield ©2017.
Parks can play an important role in
supporting wellbeing and connection
for refugees and asylum seekers.
This resource demonstrates how, and
provides case studies and actions
that can improve access to and
enjoyment of parks. Our primary
audience is people working or
volunteering in refugee and asylum
seeker support, and all involved
in the design and management of
urban parks and other outdoor public
spaces. But we hope it may spark
interest and ideas for anyone who
likes spending time outdoors.
Do you work directly with refugees
and asylum seekers?
This resource book will share
information on how the use of public
space can help to facilitate wellbeing
and inclusion, and offers ideas for
supporting positive experiences.
Are you involved in the planning,
design or management of parks
(or other outdoor public spaces)?
This resource book gives an insight into
the experiences of refugee and asylum
seeker park users, highlights relevant
barriers and expectations, and offers
ideas for engagement and inclusion
approaches.
Are you new in your city and eager to
find out about initiatives and activities
that you could join?
We hope that you can find some ideas
for opportunities which are available in
parks and other open spaces.
2
3

Why refugees?
And why parks?
Though the experiences of refugees and
asylum seekers are complex and varied,
circumstances of under-employment,
poor living conditions, limited social
opportunities and mental health
pressures are commonly reported.
In this project we look at how using
outdoor places in cities and towns,
in particular visiting parks, has the
opportunity to improve the wellbeing
of these new residents and support
integration on the local scale.
Can the use of parks support social
networks, improve local awareness
and give a sense of belonging or a
peaceful moment?
the historic values of urban parks in the
UK (and much of Europe): that parks
are publicly owned, free to use, and for
the common good of everyone. They
are places for pleasure rather than
profit, for activities, plays and sport,
or for simply hanging out. Previous
research conducted by members of
our research team has found that
even just sitting outside in public
spaces can improve everyday quality
of life, especially of people commonly
marginalised by society 1 , and there is a
wealth of research that addresses the
mental health benefits of contact with
urban nature 2, 3, 4 . The purpose of this
project was to better understand how
this relates to the personal histories and
experiences of refugees and asylum
seekers, recognising both a shared
humanity, regardless of citizenship
status, and the impact of specific
barriers to access.
It is not straightforward. The use of
urban public space is culturally formed,
responding to different national contexts
and changing social needs, and for
all migrants the outdoors can reflect
both connections and disconnections
with their home country. The public
realm can be a place in which refugees
and asylum seekers are uncertain
about local norms, feel unwelcome
or uncomfortable or are vulnerable to
hate crimes. Diminished autonomy and
ongoing uncertainty can reduce the
confidence to venture outside, especially
to unfamiliar places.
Parks often hold an emotional value to
local people, representing memories
and affections, and engendering a
sense of ownership and care. Inevitably,
cultures of park-use can also change;
and these changes may be perceived
both positively and negatively. New
patterns of recreation, shifts between
calm and noise, increases in litter,
worries about antisocial behaviour, etc.
can surface as local tension. Whether
people interpret this as an outcome
of migration will reflect demographic
trends and broader political narratives.
Refugee support agencies are stretched
and, therefore, often focused on
points of immediate crises of status,
income and housing rather than on
medium-term ways of becoming local.
Greenspace sector organisations
(relating to parks, nature conservation,
and the use of urban public space) aim
to be inclusive, but may not understand
or know how to address accessibility
issues for refugee users. It is important
not only to recognise these contexts
and learn from them, but also to raise
aspirations for the potential of parks
not only as a ‘wellbeing resource’, but
also as a location of mutual support and
local integration.
An example of the mutual and
interconnected nature of the benefits
of ‘ refugeeswelcome in parks’ is the
introductory case study in Paris of
‘learning French outside’.
access to drop-in French classes;
these are not hidden away in a
building.
qualities of trees and sky has additional
restorative impacts, potentially
reducing stress levels.
willingness and commitment to learn
the language. The visibility of the
classes provides a counter-narrative
to fearful perceptions of asylum
seekers as a burden, and of this
neighbourhood as a place for drug
dealing and rough sleeping.
vulnerable to abuse due to being in a
group context.
square there are two high-quality
public parks, so there are opportunities
to continue socialising in a more
relaxed way.
classes
Summary:
asylum seekers
Where:
Paris, France
Initiated by:
BAMM
Website:
https://baamasso.org/en/learningfrench/
If you pass the Platz de la Bataille de
Stalingrad at 6 p.m. each day you will
see a free open-air French class given to
dozens of asylum seekers (and anyone
else interested). Learners can join one
of two groups: one for beginners and
another for more advanced French
that runs the classes in a number of
locations throughout Paris, the objective
of the classes is to “accompany people
to linguistic autonomy alongside the
learning of cultural norms needed for
daily life”. By appropriating the flights
of stairs edging the square, the classes
recreate the structure of the seminar
room, with the teachers sat at the
bottom and the students gathering
above them. These open-air public
classes not only help asylum seekers
to get on with the French language,
but also serve as social occasions on
which to meet up, make new friends and
exchange information.
4
5

Many ways to make
#refugeeswelcome
in parks
#refugeeswelcome in parks is not
uncovered a wide range of initiatives
which have supported access to and
enjoyment of parks (see diagram
right). Some of these are specifically
focused on refugee and asylum seeker
participants, other make steps to include
them within a broader group. They can
be initiated from the refugee sector or
the greenspace sector, but most include
some kind of collaboration between
different organisations. Nine of these
initiatives are highlighted in our case
studies (pages 5, 12, 13, 18, 19, 24, 25,
30, 31).
The importance of
holistic approaches
#refugeeswelcome in parks promotes
the benefits of initiatives that embed
one or all of the following aims:
1/ increase autonomy.
Refugees and asylum seekers
often have very constrained life
circumstances, in which the opportunity
to make their own choices and pursue
their own goals is very reduced. These
initiatives can increase confidence in
order to make well informed choices
about where to go in a city or town.
2/ support respite.
Many refugees and asylum seekers
live with poor mental health, and all
are adjusting to ‘finding their feet’ and
their own sense of being and belonging
in a new cultural context. Respite (as
potentially provided by outdoor places
and activities) can be about peaceful
relaxing, the enjoyment of taking part
in familiar activities, or the pleasure of
doing something you do well.
Increase
autonomy
maps
apps
websites
signs
befriending
volunteering
peer-to-peer
orientation
programmes
running groups
walking groups
excursions
informal sport
picnics
using the playground
Use and
build
healthy
social
networks
3/ use and build on social networks.
Most initiatives are supported by (and in
turn support) social relationships. The
human to human element is important:
both between organisations and
refugees and asylum seekers, and within
the friendship networks of new arrivals.
Support
respite
gardening projects
organised sport
outdoor activites
nature study
meditation
6
7

and methods
We are a team of academic and third
sector researchers with experience
in refugee integration, landscape
architecture, and social innovation. We
gained Arts and Humanities Research
Council funding to conduct this project
in the UK and Germany in 2017.
on three principles: careful listening,
learning from different contexts, and
giving back so as to support change. We
undertook a programme of interviews
with refugees and asylum seekers (16
in depth interviews and many informal
conversations), we also conducted
interviews with a range of stakeholder
groups (35 interviews) from both the
refugee sector (support and orientation
services, conversation clubs, and mental
health services) and the greenspace
sector (management, design, advocacy,
community support). All types of
interviews were conducted in three
locations: London, Sheffield and Berlin,
with additional stakeholder interviews
addressing the UK national context. We
also researched case studies of good
practice in a range of UK and Northern
European contexts, selecting nine to
feature in this resource as inspiration for
cross-sector working (for further details
of the team and interviewees see p40).
Structure of resource
FIND:
How refugees and asylum seekers
understand the culture and diversity of
parks, and research what information
they need before visiting (p.10).
JOIN IN:
The potential of parks and public open
spaces to offer a range of (mostly free)
activities so as to help combat boredom
and give a sense of purpose (p.22).
The resource is organised under four
key themes: FIND, CHAT, JOIN IN,
FEEL BETTER. Each theme introduces
contexts, what works, case studies, and
questions for inspiration.
CHAT:
How the confidence needed to
visit parks is easier to find when you
are with a friend, friends or a facilitated
group (p.16).
FEEL BETTER:
The ways in which spending time in
parks and other natural environments
can improve mental health (p.28).
The final sections address:
refugee sector
greenspace sector
connections
8 9

FIND:
ask for ideas as to
where to go
For any newcomer to a city or town,
there is much to learn. When you are
new to a country in a different part
of the world, even more is unfamiliar.
Refugees and asylum seekers might
not easily understand places, and types
of places, that seem normal to a longterm
resident. Some will have grown up
in countries in which there are public
parks, and some not. Many will be
unaware of the wide range of public
outdoor spaces in countries such as
Britain, where a short walk in a typical
city may take you through heritage
parks, sports pitches, cemeteries,
city farms, nature reserves, river and
canal banks.
Recalling their first weeks and months
in new cities, many asylum seekers and
refugees talk about feeling lost and
confused and being nervous in stepping
outside. Depending on their arrival route
and legal status, some receive some
basic orientation from service providers
when they are located in a new
accommodation 5 . The quality of this can
vary greatly. Welcome packs can be textheavy
and written in English, with official
introductions focusing on practical
instructions such as how to operate the
oven or find the post office. Information
about the local neighbourhood is
fragmented and delivered at the point of
the greatest disorientation.
All refugees and asylum seekers spend
time in public spaces in their locality
to some extent. City centre locations
are the most commonly used; they are
near facilities and feel busy and safe.
However, our interviews with asylum
seekers and refugees suggest that often
they don’t know about places beyond
the obvious, and that, glimpsing from the
outside, parks often seem too quiet
and uninviting.
What helps?
Many refugees rely on their smartphone
to get them from A to B, and to find
facilities. However, Google Maps doesn’t
provide a sense of local culture, usual
activities, and patterns of use which
characterise the social life of public
spaces. Some newcomers are lucky
enough to know or be housed with
people who have been in the city for
a while, and who might serve as ‘tour
guides’. This is often an effective way
of signposting newcomers to language
support, free meals or activities. For
well-networked asylum seekers and
refugees, conversation classes can
lead to learning about new cultures and
leisure practices, walking groups can
help with wider-scale orientation, and
support groups provide regular local
orientation. Face-to-face conversations
and peer learning tend to be the best
support in getting the hang of living
in a new place, but printed and webbased
resources can be useful, too,
in providing information which can be
returned to at different stages of settling
into a new place.
“ It felt very different
from my country;
there was
no sunshine, no
desert.”
Firuz
(Iranian/Sheffield)
10
Nafsika Michael
11

InfoCompass
Summary:
Curated online and offline information
hub for refugees and asylum seekers
Where:
Berlin, Germany
Collaborators:
place / making, Association for Socio-
Cultural Work e. V. Bezirksamtes
Reinickendorf, Albatros gGmbH
Website:
www.info-compass.net/
place / making
programme
Summary:
A dedicated orientation programme for
newly arrived Syrian refugees
Where:
London, UK
Collaborators:
Refugee Action and local partners
Website:
www.refugee-action.org.uk/our-services/
refugee-resettlement/
James explains: “We want this to be
a friendly experience and try to take
them to at least some places that speak
Arabic and may seem more familiar to
them so they are encouraged to explore
by themselves as opposed to feeling
daunted by the foreign environment.”
The second orientation is for the
wider area. In London, volunteers and
staff at Refugee Action take clients
to Shepherd’s Bush Market, where
there are several Syrian shops and
restaurants. Specific itineraries will
reflect discussion between Refugee
Action staff members and the refugees
who participate in the projects.
In 2015, at a high point in Syrian refugee
arrivals in Germany, the Integration
Commissioner of Berlin-Reinickendorf
outlined a key challenge: “The problem
are not missing services for refugees but
ways to better communicate the existing
ones where the people are actually
living.” InfoCompass is an integrated
approach, supporting information
flows between asylum seekers and
refugees, professional supporters,
organisations, and volunteers. It provides
a service which collects, structures and
locates support and activity offers and
information mapping is supported
by physically located and staffed Info
Points throughout Berlin. InfoCompass
provides a crowdsourced, collaborative
gathering of information; crucially,
however, this is supported as much
as possible by an editorial team which
check entries and provide good-quality
translation.
place / making
arrivals week and is carried out after
staff and volunteers at Refugee
Action have provided refugees with
the essentials (tenancy, housing
benefits, job-seeking appointments, GP
Firstly, local tours are given. These
involve walking with newcomers around
their immediate area and showing them
local shops, markets, supermarkets,
discount stores, local parks, mosques/
churches, post offices, payment points
(to collect benefits before a bank
account has been set up), and transport
links. James Peto from Refugee Action
feels that parks are important but
sometimes difficult to find; therefore, he
makes a point of including these in the
an element of teaching newcomers
to London about transport systems,
currency, money saving, safeguarding,
and road safety.
Clare Rishbeth
Clare Rishbeth
12
13

Questions:
How might the greenspace sector
extend a welcome to refugees? Think
about face-to-face means as well as the
accessibility of printed and web-based
information. Who could advise locally
on this?
What could be provided in formal or
informal orientation programmes to
give a sense of what different parks
offer, as well as the range of options
regarding activities?
In which ways do refugees and asylum
seekers already share info about local
facilities and resources? What are
the opportunities to extend the reach
of this?
Talking about parks, can conversation
classes provide a means of chatting
about what happens in parks at different
times of the day and year?
The maps and drawings included on
the four ‘questions’ pages are from
a landscape architecture textbook
authored by Catherine Dee. They are
included to evoke a visual sense of the
variety of parks and the different ways
people experience them, from a citywide
scale to close up.
14
15

CHAT:
come with a friend
When life is complicated and unsettling,
gathering the confidence to venture
beyond the front door can be difficult.
Many refugees and asylum seekers
feel lonely and isolated, relying on their
phone to connect with friends and family
who have ended up in different cities
and countries. Not knowing places or
people with whom to socialise, and
often without permission to work, many
have few reasons to leave the house.
Refugee support provision is often
located in crowded offices and halls,
focusing on meeting urgent needs, so
they are not ideal locations for making
or sustaining friendships. Many asylum
seekers visit only sporadically.
In our interviews, being alone was
commonly cited as a key barrier to
participation in outdoor activities.
Spending time outside can be
intimidating, partly because you are
more visible. “Venturing out is stressful,”
said Zenith (Zimbabwean/Sheffield).
“You need to have a certain kind of
boldness to settle in a new place,” said
Mercy (Kenyan/London). A number of
factors appear to shape this uncertainty
and reasonable caution. Almost all
of our respondents had heard about
experiences of racist violence. Many
have been subjected to verbal abuse
in public spaces, and have developed
their own ‘mental maps’ of safe and
less safe locations. “I have been here
for many years, but there are still places
where I would not venture out on my
own,” said Zenith. Parks that were
avoided were often located in suburban,
predominantly white areas (and
perceived to be for only ‘indigenous’
people as a result), or ones that were
too large, quiet and empty.
Ideas of ‘fitting in’ are also related
to understanding local cultures of
recreation and hanging out. Throughout
a number of interviews, refugees felt
that they needed to be seen as ‘being
normal’. Some respondents talked about
feeling different because of the colour
of their skin, way of dressing, or limited
ability to conduct a conversation in the
local language, and felt concerned that
others would judge them.
What helps?
Many of the above concerns and barriers
were significantly reduced when our
interviewees could go out with a friend
or a group. The company of other
people reduced a sense of anxiety
and discomfort and a sense of racial,
ethnic or religious ‘unfit’. Visiting with a
friend is a different way of socialising
from time spent in indoor locations, and
can provide a shared confidence and
a collective means of making sense of
new environments. Some parks are more
conducive to socially acceptable hangingout;
facilities such as BBQs, table tennis,
outdoor gym equipment, and WiFi spots
are all simple to understand, inclusive
elements of outdoor places that make
it easier for everyone to spend more
time outside. For example, the Pankow
park department in Berlin prioritised
making parks near refugee housing fun
to use, recognising the importance of
free leisure provision for integration. It is
useful if these kinds of facility-rich parks
(often accredited as ‘Green Flag’ parks 6
in the UK) are easy to find for refugee
users.
From interviews with refugee sector
stakeholders, we learnt the importance
and success of initiatives that ‘curated
sociability’: visits out in groups in which
there is some level of organisation that
crucially provides social context. This
often took the form of rural walks, but
can also be focused on urban parks.
Some groups working with refugee
young people commented on the sense
of release and freedom that spending
time outdoors with a friendship group
can bring, and one gave an example of
how Afghani teenage boys felt able to
exchange embraces in a park context
in a way that they have learnt to inhibit
in other locations. The mental health
charity MIND works with vulnerable
communities, and found that peer-topeer
support was one of the most natural
and effective ways of increasing people’s
sense of belonging to the community
and neighbourhood. Refugee support
groups such as conversation clubs and
volunteering programmes could support
the creation of such ‘peer-to-peer’
networks, and consider taking indoor
activities outside whenever feasible.
“ I like to see
people happy.
When we sit in
the park we say
‘hello’ to people.
When we see
someone with
an Arabic face
we talk to them,
but we talk to
anyone if they
can understand
our English.”
Khalid
(Syrian/London)
16
Nafsika Michael
17

Start Walking
What:
Start Walking
Summary:
Urban and countryside walks for newly
arrived students and refugees
Where:
Plymouth, UK
Initiated by:
START: Students and Refugees Together
Website:
www.studentsandrefugeestogether.com
STARTplymouth@StartPlymouth
START based in Plymouth and
Cornwall supports the orientation and
settlement of refugees in the city and
their transition ‘from people in need,
to self-reliant contributors to their
local communities’. The START model
of working brings together students
on placements from professional
programmes such as social work and
occupational therapy with refugees and
people seeking asylum, all of whom
might be new to Plymouth. The ambition
is to support an environment where
people can use and develop skills,
develop new connections and ultimately
build more cohesive communities.
‘STARTWalking’ is an initiative that
involves a series of walks (roughly
quarterly) undertaken by staff, students
and refugees, giving all a chance to get
to know both the city’s green spaces
and the nearby countryside. As well as
its proximity to Cornwall and Dartmoor,
Plymouth has a very dramatic coastal
location. The programme introduces
the walkers to this beautiful resource,
getting to know the character and
history of the landscape, building their
confidence in getting around, and
hopefully helps them develop a sense
of attachment to their new home. It
is also an opportunity to make new
friends within the refugee community
and outside, exchange experiences and
sometimes share memories of home
countries.
START Walking has produced a
guidebook highlighting nine walks in
and around the city. It provides practical
information on transport, information on
historical heritage and the local wildlife
that can be enjoyed during the walk.
This beautifully illustrated booklet can
be used as a resource for individuals,
friends and groups – newcomers and
old-timers in the city!
What:
Summary:
Riverside food bar and cultural venue
run by refugees
Where:
Warsaw, Poland
Collaborators:
Local activists
Website:
www.facebook.com/kuchniakonfliktu/
The ‘Kitchen from a Conflict Zone’ is
not just a common truck food bar. Run
by refugees, it is an open-sky restaurant
and informal outdoor eating venue
with a convenient sitting space located
adjacent to the riverbanks and a busy
pedestrian promenade, which is near
to sandy beaches and volleyball courts.
Jarmiła Rybicka, one of the founders,
says that the project aims to enable
refugees not only to be productive, but
also to gain confidence in going out
and being present in the public spaces
of the city. Jarmiła helps each of the
workers to obtain the right work permit,
and supports them in dealing with local
administrative processes.
Currently, Jarmiła’s team consists of
11 refugees, who either cook in the
kitchen or contribute to the project
in other ways, drawing on their own
talents and skills. The team is mixed
and represents different backgrounds,
currently including women from
Chechenia, Nepal, Balorus, Ukraine
and Congo and men from Algeria and
Egypt. Every day, the ‘Kitchen from a
Conflict Zone’ enables spontaneous
encounters between refugees and
Warsovians, offering delicious meals
and snacks from the home countries
of the kitchen’s cooks. Thanks to the
flexible table and plant arrangements,
it offers a welcoming, open aspect as
well as a sense of intimacy. For visitors
to the Warsaw riverbanks, the kitchen
serves as an invitation to explore the
richness of the heritage that newcomers
bring to Poland, taste the food, and
enjoy a conversation. In the current
Polish political environment, comprising
hostility towards refugees and asylum
seekers, this grassroots initiative offers
a small-scale possibility of inclusion,
integration and welcome.
Kuchnia Kunfliktu
StartWalking project
18
Kuchnia Kunfliktu
19

Questions:
Which local parks and public spaces
are most conducive for conversations
between friends, considering safety,
ease of access, facilities (including
places to sit and nearby toilets), sunnier
spots, and relatively sheltered areas?
Where does social contact in asylum
seeker and refugee circles already
take place indoors? How might it ‘spill
outdoors’ when the sun is shining?
If there are already groups providing
orientation tours or walking groups for
refugees, do they visit attractive and
facility-rich local parks as well as more
distant beauty spots?
How might refugee groups be engaged
so as to take part in designing and
improving activities that make a park
more social: playgrounds, food, informal
sport, etc.?
20
21

look out for free
festivals, sports,
children’s play,
volunteering
“Asylum seekers cannot fall in love,”
Firuz told us (Iranian/Sheffield). This
simple statement reflects the state
of limbo in which asylum seekers
live for months and years pending a
decision on their asylum application.
This process of waiting means that all
other aspects of their lives are put on
hold. Many ‘refugees-in-waiting’ lose
control of their lives: they cannot work,
cannot travel, cannot make plans, and
days are experienced as monotonous.
Love and friendship, exhilaration and
accomplishment take a back seat. It is
easy to lose the energy to initiate simple,
enjoyable activities. Funds are constantly
pressed, with no money for the bus,
no facilities for a post-sport shower, a
winter coat shared between friends 7, 8 .
Nafsika Michael
Many urban residents see local parks
as places in which to take part in
(or initiate) a range of leisure and
social activities. However, a number
of our refugee and asylum seeker
interviewees did not see the purpose
in hanging out in green spaces; these
places may be beautiful but they can
also seem strangely quiet, boring and
un-engaging. Contemplation is not
always welcome, and memories of the
past can sometimes heighten current
despondency. “I would see no purpose
in going [to parks] on my own, but from
a moment where my friend introduced
me to running, I take part in park
running classes regularly,” Firuz told us.
“There is a big
park nearby
my house with
a basketball
court and I
go with my
friends there.
Every Friday we
play football
together.”
Khalid
(Syrian/London)
What helps?
Many stories emerged during the course
of our research into refugees and
asylum seekers finding their ‘niche’ — a
purpose that helps them to feel more
like themselves and gives some kind of
structure to their days. At best, activities
in public or semi-public places provide
times and places of contact between
newcomers and longstanding residents,
where companionship can be found by
‘doing alongside’ rather than extended
conversations (although many of our
interviewees would avoid contexts in
which they were the only asylum seeker
or refugee).
Everyone is different; therefore, having
a variety of ways in which to ‘join in’ is
important. Points of contact can be
organised sessions: playing football,
gardening (and sharing cooking), walking
groups, conservation volunteering, etc.
Structure and regularity can be very
useful, especially with capable and
experienced facilitation. In the Green
City Action community allotment in
Sheffield, specific sessions attract
refugee participants in which “growing
happens, a cup of tea happens, a lot of
conversation happens”. Regular visitors
find a space in which to grow vegetables
from their own seeds, cook dishes from
their home country, and swap multilingual
words for different plants using
pictures on the wall. Doing something,
especially something that connects to
past interests, can help to restore a
sense of autonomy and purpose.
Participation can also be about informal,
easy-to-understand ways to join in as
one person among many: pushing
a swing in a playground, sitting on a
bench in a sunny courtyard, watching
a performance at a summer fete or
throwing a frisbee in a park. Asylum
seekers and refugees with children
often find park visits an essential coping
strategy. “When the weather is supernice
I put off all other responsibilities
and take the kids outside!” said Najwa
(Palestinian/Berlin).
Some parks offer a wider range of
ways in which to participate than do
others, and in the Sheffield context,
city centre locations in particular were
seen as convenient, inclusive and safe.
Every newcomer to Sheffield knew,
and spoke warmly about, the Peace
Gardens, a central urban garden with
attractive planting and run-through
fountains where children play. Here,
respondents feel comfortable about
visiting with friends, or on their own,
and enjoy watching others. Everyday
acts of participation not only alleviate
boredom, but also are intrinsic to public
integration and may increase a sense of
belonging in new surroundings.
22
23

Football
Summary:
Weekly football sessions
for asylum seekers, refugees and
local youth
Where:
Sheffield, UK
Collaborators:
FURD, U-Mix Centre, Sheffield
Website:
www.furd.org
Football Unites, Racism Divides
(FURD) hosts weekly football sessions
at the U-Mix Centre in Sheffield for
asylum seekers and refugees, and
local youth more broadly, to promote
social inclusion and understanding
between different communities. FURD
believes that “football, as the world’s
most popular sport, can help break
down barriers created by ignorance or
prejudice, and bring together people
from different backgrounds to play,
watch and enjoy the game”.
Wednesday U-Mix sessions gather
a diverse mixture of users: younger
and older experienced players and
beginners (though, sadly, efforts to
attract women haven’t worked out yet).
Around 15 people usually turn up and
join in. According to one of the regular
members of the group, Wednesday
sessions are a great way for newcomers
to establish a network of friends
in Sheffield and learn about other
events and activities going on in the
city. Football exercises allow refugees
and asylum seekers to undertake a
structured physical activity outdoors
irrespective of the weather. Playing
football provides a helpful escape
from everyday worries. After a game,
all participants are welcome to lunch
— a friendly way to continue informal
discussions, about football and beyond,
and develop new friendships and
connections.
Nafsika Michael
Growing together
Summary:
Inspiration, training and support in
establishing own gardening projects
Where:
Berlin, Germany
Collaborators:
Die GRÜNE LIGA Berlin and
Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung
und Umwelt
Website:
www.grueneliga-berlin.de/themenprojekte2/stadtbegruenung/integrationund-inklusion/
The project entitled ‘Growing together
- gardening as a contribution to
integration’ is an initiative run by
the Green Liga and supported by
the Berlin Senate. It aims to include
all Berliners who are interested in
community growing and developing
gardening skills. Local associations,
neighbourhood groups, cooperatives,
businesses, schools, shelters, refugee
homes, disability support, and all
interested citizens are welcome to
develop their own gardening initiatives.
Green Liga inspires, motivates and
supports new gardening projects
in local communities by organising
seminars and workshops on community
gardening as well as providing individual
and community consultations. In 2016,
over 20 community gardening initiatives
were undertaken throughout Berlin
as part of the project: flowerbeds in
courtyards, community gardens in local
neighbourhoods and in emergency
shelters, and school projects. Green
Liga also runs a competition for the
best gardening initiative that champions
inclusion, integration and wellbeing.
Nafsika Michael
Nafsika Michael
24
Nafsika Michael
Nafsika Michael
25

Questions:
Who can connect local outdoor sports
and recreational groups with asylum
seekers? What is the scope for both
informal links and formal referrals?
How can organisations offering
free activities, from outdoor films
to conservation work, gain help in
addressing access barriers for refugees
and asylum seekers?
If there are outdoor volunteering
opportunities, can training and
accreditation be integrated so as to
support future employability? Is anyone
local already doing this from whom you
could learn?
Who could collaborate on a good
playground guide?
26
27

FEEL
BETTER:
research shows that
spending time outside
can improve mental
health
from both MIND and City of Sanctuary
outlined the high incidence of mental
health problems for refugees and
asylum seekers. Though much of
this distress can be related to the
circumstances of leaving their home
country, it can be exacerbated by the
experience of ‘the limbo’ that individuals
find within the asylum system, and by
precarious and poor-quality housing,
fragmented support, and social isolation
9, 10
. “I am depressed and take antidepression
drugs […] My mood here is
different. In Iran I was very happy. Maybe
my mood will change if I can work, go to
university and can contribute to society,”
said Hozan (Kurdish/Bradford).
Some of our interviewees talked
about days when they felt too low or
too exhausted to venture outdoors,
where you are visible and potentially
judged. For example, Hayyan (Syrian/
Berlin) explained that he does not want
anyone to see him on days when he is
particularly stressed or feeling angry. A
destitution centre manager in London
underlined that for more vulnerable
refugees and asylum seekers, spending
time outside requires the effort of ‘fitting
in’, and that indoor spaces can feel
less demanding and, indeed, feel more
‘normal’.
“ The difference
between indoors
and outdoors
is that I prefer
the outdoors
because I am
able to let the
negative energy
out when I am
outside. Indoors
I am stressed
and feel more
pressure.”
Tamara
(Syrian/Berlin)
What works?
However, most of our respondents were
keen to talk about experiences of feeling
better, less anxious and more relaxed
in parks. This was especially mentioned
in the Berlin context, in which men and
women talked about finding times of
calm in both parks and urban squares.
Rima (Syrian/Berlin) enjoyed being part
of a lively buzz, spending afternoons
sitting on a bench with her husband in
Alexanderplatz, but also highly valued
her local park. “When she is upset or
confused, she likes to go there to think
by herself and find peace in her soul
and mind” (researcher notes). Sami
(Syrian/Berlin) expressed a preference
for open spaces, and described
spending time in parks as a respite from
the crowdedness of city streets. Sensory
qualities of being outdoors were often
noted as important, such as walking
barefoot on the grass, being able to eat
outside, or simply having a smoke on
a bench. Some refugees and asylum
seekers preferred being among activity,
others spoke of the value of finding a
calm, quiet spot.
Respite can be purposeful and expertly
supported, with some thoughtful
and responsive initiatives providing
therapeutic support for those recovering
from significant trauma (one excellent
example is The Grange in Norfolk,
as well as the currently developing
‘Gardens of Sanctuary’ programme 11,
12
countryside or to the seaside can
offer points of genuine joy and relief.
immediately. We don’t think about any of
our troubles…,” said Lotanna (Nigerian/
London), but the temporary nature of
these trips brings about limitations. “But
as soon as we come back, our troubles
return.” Regular visits to local places may
have more long-term benefits. Sarah, a
Red Cross worker running a ‘Welcome
Group’ for refugees in South Yorkshire,
took the approach of spending as
much time as possible outdoors.
She advocated using trips and
volunteering as a means of helping
refugees to “escape the everyday, to
cleanse their minds”.
Ultimately, autonomy is important as
well as respite. Asylum seekers who
have managed to find and take part in
outdoor activities, walking or running
groups, gardening projects, etc. clearly
felt the wellbeing benefits of these
small-scale achievements. “Do not
stay along at home! Force yourself to
activity!” This is Firuz’s enthusiastic
advice to his fellow asylum seekers
(Iranian/Sheffield).
28
Nafsika Michael
29

Horticultural therapy
Summary:
Post trauma mental health support
through gardening
Where:
London, UK
Collaborators:
South London and Maudsley NHS
Foundation Trust (Slam), Maudsley
Charity, and horticultural project Roots
and Shoots.
Website:
www.slam.nhs.uk/media/our-blog/
horticultural-therapy-garden-formaudsley-hospital
www.theguardian.com/healthcarenetwork/2017/jun/28/nhs-therapeuticgardening-help-refugees-trauma
For 10 years the project has
provided therapeutic gardening and
psychotherapy to refugees and asylum
seekers suffering from mental health
problems such as depression, anxiety
and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD). Many who use the service have
been affected by trafficking, torture,
violence and rape, and have been
referred by mental health services
at the Southwark PTSD trauma unit.
Prior experience that clients have
in gardening varies: some are very
experienced, whereas others are
complete novices. Gemma Eke, a
clinical psychologist from Slam, explains
how many of their service users with
PTSD are in need of routine in their
lives, and that involvement in a facilitated
gardening project can help to provide
this. Initially, clients attend a 10-week
course in a group, wherein they are
taught skills to manage their mental
health, after which they are invited to
return for a weekly gardening session.
According to Gemma Eke, gardening as
a tool for psychotherapy not only helps
clients to ‘concentrate better’ and ‘to
be present’, but also develops social
relationships and trust. Asylum seekers
who take part in the project often
refer to powerful metaphors in relation
to gardening and recovery. As one
participant said: “When I see the corn
growing I think, although my life has
been demolished, I can still grow again.”
Beth Steddon
Wheels for Wellbeing
Cycling club
Summary:
Cycle training and group rides.
Where:
Manchester, UK
Collaborators:
Refugee Action, Groundwork, and local
operators
Website:
www.groundwork.org.uk/Sites/
targetwellbeing/pages/refugee-wellbeing-project-tw
Refugee Action’s Wellbeing Cycling
Club was set up in 2008 in partnership
with the Cycling Touring Club (CTC)
and funded through the Big Lottery
Fund’s Target Wellbeing. Between
2013 and 2015, the Wellbeing Cycling
Club provided cycling training to over
400 asylum seekers and refugees
throughout Greater Manchester. For
a few hours a week, keen learner and
experienced cyclists took part in parkbased
and on-road cycling activities,
including training on safety, control, and
the Highway Code.
Cycling classes were targeted at
different age and gender groups, and
advertised through word-of-mouth,
posters, and staff working at centres
such as the Boaz Trust, Revive, and the
British Red Cross.
The formal cycling training sessions were
supplemented by ongoing individual
advice from social work students on
placement from Manchester and Salford
Universities. Though it focused on
cycling, this additional encouragement
aimed at addressing wider issues in
relation to stress and wellbeing in a
broader life context. Evaluation of the
project was built into all stages, partly
through the keeping of ‘cycling diaries’ by
47 participants. Two thirds of respondents
reported an improvement in their stress
management, 83% reported feeling
happier after having taken part, and all
appreciated learning new skills. Some
groups built a sense of community
among participants, and an increase in
confidence allowed them to explore their
neighbourhood more freely. For some,
cycling became their favourite means
of getting around. Sadly, the specific
funding stream ran out in 2015, bringing
an end to the project, and the bikes were
donated to a local community project
who could continue its good work.
30
Beth Steddon
Refugee Action
31

Questions:
Where are places of respite in your local
area or nearby?
Where and when is health information
and support given to refugees and
asylum seekers? Could information
about parks and outdoor activities be
part of this?
What training or information do health
providers need in order to better
understand contexts and constraints
of refugees’ and asylum seekers’ daily
lives?
Which sports or recreational
organisations in your area could host
events or training for refugees, and what
creative ways are there to address some
common barriers (kit, travel, snacks,
etc.)?
32
33

The importance
of integration and
connections
#refugeeswelcome in parks is often
about continuing what you may already
be doing, but increasing the range of
participants involved or the potential
Find, Chat, Join In,
and Feel Better framework helps you
to consider and address barriers to
open space use that may be particularly
relevant to refugee and asylum seekers.
starting point. If you have an initiative
that has a key objective to support
wellbeing (FEEL BETTER), then follow
the arrows, and check whether you are
addressing the challenges of finding, of
supporting confidence by coming with a
friend, and of understanding the activity
as something fun to join in.
FIND
In order to want to FIND out about
local parks, there needs to be a broad
understanding of how these can be
places in which to socialise, to easily
take part in free activities, and that this
time spent outside can improve mental
and physical health.
People feel safer to CHAT outside when
they can find a park that suits their
mood, and have a choice of activities.
This can help them to become less
isolated.
CHAT
It’s easier to JOIN IN things when
activities are easy to find, provide a nondemanding
social context, and give a
sense of purpose.
People FEEL BETTER when they can
discover and spend time in places that
feel relaxing and safe, and where they
can spend time doing things that they
enjoy.
FEEL
BETTER
34
35

Seven brilliant ideas about parks
for people working to increase wellbeing and
integration for refugees and asylum seekers
1.
Include local parks and greenspaces
in orientation programmes, especially
thinking about the range of activities and
times of the day/week/year.
2.
With refugees and asylum seekers, cocreate
information on local facilities,
events, outdoor volunteering, and
activities. Find methods with which to
update and share these.
3.
Connect the indoors and outdoors.
When the sun is shining, take activities
outside or suggest nearby places to
continue conversations afterwards.
4.
Encourage ‘conversation clubs’ to talk
about parks: different types and kinds
of open space, facilities, what is okay to
do there (and what is not), and being
honest about problems.
5.
Help refugees and asylum seekers to
feel more confident about exploring
the outdoors by ‘going with a friend’,
especially if trying out a new activity
or finding a new place. Encourage the
more settled to act as tour guides for
new arrivals.
6.
Think about how you and your
organisation ‘can be found’ by sports
and greenspace organisations looking to
promote events and improve inclusion.
7.
Set up a ‘health & parks’ kit. Lend
frisbees, badminton sets, footballs, BBQ
sets, picnic rugs, trainers, skateboards.
36
37

Seven brilliant ideas to welcome refugees
for people working in the parks and
greenspace sector
1.
Make sure that information about parks,
including facilities and activities, is visual
and welcoming. Connect this directly to
Google Maps.
2.
Find out if any of your current staff
or volunteers have connections with
refugee support organisations and listen
to their ideas for developing access.
3.
Investigate who locally provides
refugee and asylum seeker orientation.
types of parks and outdoor activities,
as well as contacts within ‘Friends of’
groups.
4.
Review how welcoming a park
is through the eyes of someone
concerned about their own safety,
and think about what would make a
difference in the short and long term.
5.
Increase free, easy-access activities
in public spaces: music, sport, gyms,
BBQs, play equipment.
6.
From boot camps to bug hunts, include
refugees and asylum seekers in outdoor
wellbeing and nature initiatives.
7.
Within your own organisation, include
refugee and asylum seeker issues
within training in relation to
engagement and diversity.
38
39

What next?
Whether you have read through this
resource booklet cover to cover or
dipped into random pages, we hope
that it may have sparked some ideas, be
they big ones or small ones. Many of you
will be busy people, so maybe it’s not
a brand-new thing, but rather a tweak
to something existing. Most of these
ideas and approaches are nationally
and internationally relevant, but are
best acted upon locally. Therefore, drop
someone an email, phone them, or find
a mutual friend for an introduction —
get something started so as to support
#refugeeswelcome in parks.
We are keen to work with partnerships
on all scales over a long period of time,
sharing the ideas that worked better than
expected and learning from those that
didn’t. So please do get back to us and
let us know what you did and how it went.
Clare and the team
The #refugeeswelcome
in parks team
Clare Rishbeth, University of Sheffield, UK
Radhika Bynon, The Young Foundation, UK
Jonathan Darling, University of
Manchester, UK
Tobias Stapf, Minor, Berlin, Germany
Dominika Blachnicka-Ciacek, University of
Sheffield, UK
With fieldwork and additional
contributions by:
Safa’a AbuJarour and Wassili Siegert
(Minor) Suzanne Solley and Nabeela
Ahmed (Young Foundation)
A thank you to our
refugee and asylum
seeker interviewees
We appreciate your time and sharing with
us your experiences of new beginnings
and spending time outside.
With the Sheffield team
Reda (f, Uzbekistan), Hozan (m, Kurdish,
Iran), Zenith (m, Zimbabwe), Firuz (m, Iran)
With the London team
Khalid (m, Syria), Maher (m, Syria)
Rana (f, Syria)
Shorter informal conversations with
Lotanna (f, Nigeria), Yamha, Mawusi and
Wafaa’ (all f, Ghana), Dehab (f, Eritrea),
Mercy (f, Kenya), Fikru (m, Eritrea), and
Beysos (m, Iraq). Beysos (m, Iraq)
With the Berlin team
Rima (f, Syria), Sami (m, Syria)
Rifat (m, Syria), Hayyan (m, Syria)
Najwa (f, Palestine), Rasha (f, Syria)
Tamara (f, Syria), Lana (f, Iraq)
Ali (m, Iraq)
Pseudonyms have been used throughout.
A thank you to
stakeholder
interviewees
We appreciate your time and reflections
on your own experiences and expertise
relating to refugee and asylum seeker
integration and wellbeing, and/or the
ethos and practice of inclusion in green
spaces.
Sheffield local
City of Sanctuary
Assist (destitute asylum seeker support)
British Red Cross
Chilly Pep (young people support)
Sheffield City Council Parks Department
Green City Action
Friends of Firth Park
Cohesion Advisory Group
London local
young people)
Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park
Stepney City Farm
Refugee Action
Austin Forum
Hackney Destitution Centre
Haringey Migrant Support Centre,
Streatham Drop In
SLAM
Berlin local
Hilfe für Jungs e. V. (Aid for Youth)
Diakoniegemeinschaft Bethania
(Diakonia Society Bethania)
Straßen- und Grünflächenamt
Streets and Greenspaces)
Gangway e. V.
Grün Berlin GmbH (Green Berlin)
Tempelhofer Berg e. V.
Anwohnerinitiative Görlitzer Park
(Residents Initiative)
Die Gärtnerei/Schlesische 27
Interkular
Place / making
Grünflächenamt Tempelhof Schöneberg
Schöneberg)
Greenspaces Pankow)
GrenzGänger
Polizei Berlin (Berlin Police)
UK national
Mind
Refugee Tales
City of Sanctuary
Wildlife Trust
The Grange
LDA Design
A thank you to our
case study contacts
Melora Koepke (Paris)
Place / making (Berlin)
Refugee Action (London)
START Students and Refugees Together
(Plymouth)
Kuchnia Konfliku (Warsaw)
Football Unites, Racism Divides - FURD
(Sheffield)
Die GRÜNE LIGA (Berlin)
South London and Maudsley NHS
foundation trust - SLAM (London)
Refugee Action (Manchester)
A thank you to our
funders
#refugeeswelcome in parks was funded
by the Arts and Humanities Research
Council (AHRC). This project was
Connected Communities programme,
designed to understand the changing
nature of communities in their historical
and cultural contexts, and the role of
communities in sustaining and enhancing
quality of life. For further information,
please go to www.ahrc.ac.uk
40
41

References
1. Bynon, R. and Rishbeth, C. (2015)
Benches for Everyone: solitude in
public, sociability for free. London,
The Young Foundation.
2. Cooper, R., Burton, E. and Cooper,
C. (2014) Wellbeing: A Complete
Reference Guide, Volume II,
Wellbeing and the Environment.
Chichester, Wiley Blackwell.
3. Bragg, R., Wood, C., Barton, J. and
Pretty, J. (2015) Wellbeing benefits
from natural environments rich in
wildlife. Colchester, University of
Essex.
Urban green spaces and health.
for Europe.
5. House of Commons. Home
Affairs Committee (2017) Asylum
accommodation. Twelfth Report of
the Session 2017-2017. Available at
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/
cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/637/637.pdf
[Accessed: 16/10/17]
6. http://www.greenflagaward.org.uk
7. Connolly, K. (2017) Two years on, has
Angela Merkel’s welcome culture
worked in Germany? The Guardian,
30 August 2017.
8. Lyons, K. (2017) How do you live on
£36.95 a week? Asylum seekers on
surviving on their allowance. The
Guardian, 21 August 2017.
9. MIND (2009). Improving mental
health support for refugee
communities – an advocacy
approach. London, Mind.
10. Working with People Seeking
Asylum and Refuge (WWPSAR)
(2016) A Guide for Mental Health
and Social Care Professionals in
Merseyside. Available at https://
www.thelivewelldirectory.com/
Services/1413/Working-with-People
[Accessed: 16/10/17]
11. www.thegrangenorfolk.org.uk.
12. Gardens of Sanctuary is a
partnership initiative between
City of Sanctuary, the Permaculture
Association UK, and the Federation
of City Farms and Community
Gardens.
Image and graphics credits
Catherine Dee (p9, 14&15, 20&21, 26&27,
32&33) Images first published in Dee,
C. (2001) Form and fabric in landscape
architecture: a visual introduction.
London, Spon Press.
Graphic Design: Eleven Design
www.elevendesign.co.uk
Contact us for further copies of
this resource book, or access a
digital version at:
www.refugeeswelcomeinparks.com
www.refugeeswelcomeinparks.com
Correspondence contact:
Clare Rishbeth,
Department of Landscape,
University of Sheffield,
Sheffield,
S10 2TN.
c.rishbeth@sheffield.ac.uk
42
43

44

Appendix 10
Examples of Best practice
BAMER Environmental Projects and Activities
Sheffield Environment Movement
1. Environmental Pottery
Environmental Pottery is known to improve mental health. It is considered a therapy for people of all
ages, and is especially useful for treating Depression and Bipolar Disorder. The use of environmental
pottery as a therapy is proven, as it can help to show promising signs in alleviating symptoms of
mental health. It provides non-threatening environments in which therapy not only help people relax
but also encourage creative energy.
The environmental pottery activity helps to alleviate perceptions of pain and promotes a sense of
calmness, slows blood pressure and heart rate. This is because the moulding of clay and the creation
of pottery require concentration, providing distraction from other issues. Often, with just a few
sessions of an environmental pottery therapy, many depressed adults report an improvement in mood
and can even taper back medications used to treat depression or bipolar disorder. Pottery has
therapeutic benefits for senior citizens as it helps to maintain cognitive, emotional, social and physical
fitness.
2. Guided Nature Health Walks
Guided nature health walks are often referred to as eco-therapy‘, a form of physical exercise. They
are regarded as one of the most powerful interventions a person can do to help promote their health
and well-being. In fact, health walks have been listed as evidence-based forms of prevention or
treatment in 39 UK national guidelines to help improve the quality of patient care. It is known to
reduce risk or improve outcomes in cancers and other heart related problems such as high blood
pressure, respiratory disorders.
It also helps older people suffering from arthritis as well as being good for people’s physical and
mental wellbeing. Guided historical walks for example can help people discover new places, learn
about the cultural and ecological history of the local and wider environments as well as diverse
landscapes, it is especially important in helping people from urbanised communities reconnect with
nature.
3. Coarse Fishing
Angling such as Coarse Fishing can offer beneficiaries the chance to relax, it may offer intense
excitement, fresh air, comradeship and even exercise. What each angler gets from it will however
depend on the angler. Naturally for anglers, the green spaces and proximity to water sources are
important. Aside from the appearance of common words such as ‘fish’ and ‘fishing’, the most
prominent words associated with people who derive benefits from angling are ‘relaxation’, ‘relaxing’,
‘stresses’, ‘fresh air’ and ‘wildlife’.
Angling clearly has significant value for health and wellbeing, helping people wind- down, de-stress
and observe wildlife in outdoor environments. Angling helps to improve psychological wellbeing by
enhancing mood and self-esteem, improved recovery from physical illness and the facilitation of social
networking, it is especially therapeutic for young people with ADHD/Autism.
4. Environmental Photography
Photographs of nature helps create energy and optimism, helps patients redirect negative thoughts,
and provide comfort for the soul. Acutely stressed patients who are exposed to “serene” photographs
(primarily water or other tranquil nature scenes) have lower blood pressure than patients exposed to
no art or bland posters.

Viewing nature scenes promote positive feelings and help people feel less stressed when looking at
nature. Photographs of a variety of landscapes helps lower stress levels especially how much
greenery is in the picture. It helps to promote biophilia, implying affection for plants and other living
things and creativity especially in young people who would learn about their environmental heritage
and the importance of preserving and conserving the natural environment.
5. Cycling
Cycling is one of the best ways to reduce the risk of health related problems associated with a
sedentary lifestyle. It helps people to be fit and healthy by being physically active. Regular physical
activity can help protect you from serious diseases such as obesity, heart disease, cancer, mental
illness, diabetes and arthritis.
Cycling is a healthy, low-impact exercise that can be enjoyed by people of all ages, from young
children to older adults. It is also fun, cheap and good for the environment and to discover new
places.
6. Horse Riding
Horse riding is often known as ‘Equine’ therapy, a complementary therapy that stimulates the entire
body of the patient. People regardless of age, when on top of a horse increase their self-esteem and,
this is also therapeutic as during the riding period increases the patient’s rehabilitation. Physically
it improves vertical and horizontal balance, muscle tone, improves motor coordination. People
experience independent movement of the pelvis and shoulders, which are essential for enabling
healthy walking habits as riding provides the same upper body sensation as walking.
Psychologically it helps people feel a sense of general well-being, improved self-esteem and selfconfidence.
The therapy also helps to reduce feelings of insecurity and fear that in turn will help
people gain more confidence in everyday life. Educationally, it improves attention and concentration,
essential qualities that any person should have for any area requiring educational skills. Socially it
promotes the development of respect, responsibility, perseverance and love toward animals. It also
improves family and social integration, mental and emotional disturbances such as autism, phobias
and psychoses.
7. Outdoor Adventure
Outdoor adventure is often commonly referred to as ‘adventure therapy’ because of the psychological
benefits associated for taking part in outdoor adventure activities. Outdoor Adventure have been
known to have a positive impact on an individual’s self-esteem and self-efficacy.
Other reported psychological, physical and sociological benefits of outdoor adventure experiences
and interventions include: recovery from mental fatigue, concentration restoration, improved healing
for patients who previously had not responded to treatment, enhanced positive outlook on life, and
increased ability to cope with and recover from stress, illness and injury. It is these identified nature
based related benefits that has led to outdoor adventure being more widely used as a psychological
therapy for addressing a range of clinical and health conditions. For example, post-traumatic stress
disorder, depression and anxiety or eating disorders.
8. Foraging for wild plants
Foraging for wild plants helps people to learn about their heritage for example, the history and uses of
different plant species in England. Plants are key to our existence as they have been used
traditionally for generations for food, as herbal medicine and other purposes for sustenance examples
are: Nettle, Elder and Teasel.
There are similar plants in other cultures from different countries used in the same or other ways.
Foraging therefore helps people learn to explore, discover and identify the traditional uses of plants
from different cultures and how they are still being used today. For example, the aim of
‘Ethnomdedica’ or ‘remembered-remedies’ is to gather information about the plant species used
medicinally in Britain prior to the introduction of the National Health Service in 1945, such as the
Sphagnum Moss which was used as an antiseptic to threat the wounds of wounded soldiers during
the Second World War.
9. OPAL Explore Nature Surveys

Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) Explore Nature is a UK-wide environmental citizenship science
initiative which allows you to have hands-on experience with nature, whatever your age, background
or level of ability. OPAL has been used to enhance outdoor learning in schools and among community
groups as it is easy to use, without having knowledge of basic science.
It allows people to go outdoors to explore, discover and record scientific data of their local
environments through use of OPAL surveys such as Air, Water, Soil/Earthworms, Biodiversity,
Climate, Trees and Bugs, using field guides and work books. This helps community groups to
appreciate the importance of the diverse environmental heritage called biodiversity.
10. Environmental Campaigning/Social Justice
Environmental campaigning is about environmental/social justice for everyone. It is about promoting
environmental equality especially for people from deprived communities who are excluded and
marginalised from environmental decision making and are often victims of the impacts of
environmental hazards such as air pollution or flooding. It aims to raise awareness and to mobilise
people to become aware of environmental issues impacting on their health, wellbeing and in their
communities.
This involves empowering people to become aware to campaign, lobby and advocate for their voices
to be heard in the environmental decision making process. This is because the environment is no
respecter of persons when it is comes to a disaster or pollution and therefore require the need for
environmental stewardship or citizenship to help make the quality of the built and natural environment
a better place for everyone.

Appendix 11
MOSAIC MATTERS
“It’s like little bits of everything that has helped”1
External Evaluation of the Mosaic Project
Executive Summary
February 2016
Sue Waite1, Dick Waite2, Jocey Quinn1, Claudia Blandon1 & Alice
Goodenough
1Institute of Education, Plymouth University 2RWK Works
1 Young Champion’s comment (Exmoor National Park)
4
MOSAIC HEADLINES: THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Campaign for National Parks leads the Mosaic project (2013-2016) which aims to build
long-term youth skills, citizenship, health and confidence through engagement with National
Parks. It is trying to make things fairer and better for young people aged 16 to 25 who don’t
have the best opportunities in life by encouraging them to volunteer and help other young
people to enjoy National Parks. Criteria for taking part included being Not in Employment,
Education or Training; limited access to public transport and services; not knowing what
career path to follow; being the main carer in the home; needing to improve physical or
mental health or suffering from stress. The recruited volunteers were called Young
Champions. They were sometimes identified individually but also reached through
partnership with other organisations.
The external evaluation by Plymouth Institute of Education included analysis of participation
and costs and charted changes in young people’s perception of their health, confidence and
citizenship and nature connectedness. A case study in Exmoor National Park involved four
Young Champions and Project Officers to explore the meaning of their participation through
photographs and interviews. CNP also compiled illustrative case studies from the project
showing the project methods and highlighting impacts Mosaic had on Young Champions.
These are available on the Mosaic pages of the CNP website (cnp.org.uk).
KEY FACTS AND FINDINGS
1. 130 Young Champions were registered six months before the end of the project as
participating across the five National Parks involved in the programme, taking part in
a total of 459 activities. The target for recruitment was 150.
5
2. The number of Young Champions recruited, their gender mix and age profile differ
considerably between the five National Parks: Exmoor, New Forest, Northumberland,
Lake District and Yorkshire Dales.
3. On average, by mid-November 2015, the cost per Young Champion recruited was
£3,478. Actual per capita cost differed quite substantially between National Parks,
due to variations in recruitment numbers but even distribution of funds. Activities
were often low cost but more time was needed for preparatory work to develop
partnerships. Substantial in-kind contributions from the National Parks and partner
organisations are not included in this calculation. However it also does not take
account of the 1135 other young people that took part in visits. The reach of the
project is greater than is represented by the number of Young Champions alone.
4. The majority of Young Champions are White British (70 of 88 for whom ethnicity is
recorded). Nevertheless, Mosaic has recruited a higher proportion from other ethnic
backgrounds than exist in the general population. At the time of entering the
programme, 23% of Young Champions were not in employment, education or
training (NEET).
5. Young Champions rated themselves fairly highly on scales that seek to measure
connection to nature, self-confidence, relationships and health. There were
significant increases in self-ratings on these line chart statements:

I am confident in the outdoors.
I am good at leading activities.
I am confident at work, or about finding work.
I have good relationships with staff in the National Park2.
6. Those Young Champions completing the Nature Relatedness (NR6) scale twice
rated themselves significantly higher on follow-up on the factor “My relationship with
nature is an important part of who I am”3.
7. Young Champions express high satisfaction with the activities provided (average
5.4/6) and a high likelihood of returning to the Park as a result of attending (4.9/6).
8. Seven people, who knew individual Young Champions, responded to a survey and
thought that participation in Mosaic had improved young people’s physical and
mental well-being, confidence, social networks, involvement in the community and
employability skills.
9. The learning and development from the Mosaic project has helped to keep young
people on the National Park Authorities’ agendas. This has led to a number of
projects being developed beyond the life of the present project. These include:
a. New Forest NPA Youth Access Project (YAP) - a coordinated system
where providers of educational activities in the New Forest are linked up with
colleges and youth organisations who are looking for activities to do.
2 See also Heinsch (2012) Para 130 about the importance of feeling accepted for social wellbeing
3 Attachment to nature was also found to be a factor in increased civic participation by Theimer and
Ernst
(2012) Para 131
6
b. Northumberland NPA Youth Cabinet – Made up of young people from within
and outside the NP boundaries. They have already had influence on the NPA
management plan.
c. Lake District NPA Rusland Horizons - Mosaic facilitated involvement of
young people from Barrow in the pilot ‘Full Cycle’ project. Landscape
Partnership funding has now been secured and young people will continue to
be involved. LDNPA is also working proactively to engage more young people
become volunteers and have a Young Champion on their Volunteer Advisory
Group
d. Exmoor and Northumberland NPAs working together with CNP on future
national events or young people involved in National Parks.
e. Yorkshire Dales NPA has taken learning points, relating to outreach, youthled
approaches and lessons from running the Let’s Do It fund from Mosaic to
inform the new Green Futures project, working with all ages up to 25.
f. YHA Young Champions scheme – this scheme uses the learning achieved
through Mosaic to run a volunteer programme for 16 to 25 year olds. Learning
focusses on the Let’s Do It Fund, working on governance issues and
activities.
PERCEPTIONS AND POSITIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
While the Champion model focuses on individuals, Mosaic also included a large proportion
of collaborative work in partnership with others. Interviews, photographs taken by Young
Champion co-researchers and stakeholder focus groups revealed the perception that
Mosaic:
Required time to develop partnerships to support young people and that some young
people would benefit from broadening the Champion model to value teamwork and
collaboration as well as individualist leadership.
Encouraged acceptance of self and others, improving social confidence through
providing a safe space.
Encouraged attachment and a sense of belonging to place through highlighting both the
familiar and the novel, especially through residential gatherings.
Encouraged attachment to significant others (often the project officer) through personal
commitment and interest in the young people and the trust this engendered4.
Addressed issues of social inequity and the invisibility of young people in the National
Parks by surfacing barriers to access and addressing gaps in youth service provision.
Supported positive wellbeing and physical health through purposeful activities5.

4 Liang et al (2013) Para 154 also highlight how partnership, role modelling and active listening
enhance
successful youth work
5 Cervinka et al (2012) Para 130 demonstrated similar wellbeing outcomes from nature; Nisbet at al
(2009)
Para 133 found nature connectedness linked to purpose in life and stress relief
7
Supported positive outcomes for individuals at an organisational and personal level
through social networks and partnerships.
Increased employability through growing skills, developing influential networks and
building confidence at work or in finding work.
Motivated increased civic participation through nurturing interest in environmental action
and volunteering6.
Enhanced the perception of young people’s capacities by creating higher levels of trust
in their abilities within the wider community and various networks.
Contributed to their connection to nature, according to the young people themselves7.
Young Champions’ main concern was that accessing these benefits required money and
that the end of the project signalled a loss of opportunity. The extent to which young
people’s involvement had been embedded in wider National Park policy and practice was
also unclear, as some comments in focus groups suggested that it might not continue.
However, steps are being taken to create lasting legacies from the project. The interest
shown in young people’s views and interest was much appreciated and the photography
methodology and film opportunity appeared to have struck a chord in enabling young
people to express their views in their own terms.
RECOMMENDATIONS
6 RSPB (2013) Para 155 found environmental action helped young people become responsible
citizens
7 Pointon (2013) Para 129 found the majority of young people saw nature as separate from
themselves

Appendix 12 - MIND
Five ways to wellbeing
The following steps have been researched and developed by the New Economics Foundation.
Connect
There is strong evidence that indicates that feeling close to, and valued by, other people is a
fundamental human need and one that contributes to functioning well in the world.
It’s clear that social relationships are critical for promoting wellbeing and for acting as a buffer
against mental ill health for people of all ages.
With this in mind, try to do something different today and make a connection.
Talk to someone instead of sending an email
Speak to someone new
Ask how someone’s weekend was and really listen when they tell you
Put five minutes aside to find out how someone really is
Give a colleague a lift to work or share the journey home with them.
Be active
Regular physical activity is associated with lower rates of depression and anxiety across all age
groups.
Exercise is essential for slowing age-related cognitive decline and for promoting well-being.
But it doesn’t need to be particularly intense for you to feel good - slower-paced activities, such
as walking, can have the benefit of encouraging social interactions as well providing some level
of exercise.
Today, why not get physical? Here are a few ideas:
Take the stairs not the lift
Go for a walk at lunchtime
Walk into work - perhaps with a colleague – so you can ‘connect’ as well
Get off the bus one stop earlier than usual and walk the final part of your journey to work
Organise a work sporting activity
Have a kick-about in a local park
Do some ‘easy exercise’, like stretching, before you leave for work in the morning
Walk to someone’s desk instead of calling or emailing.
Take notice
Reminding yourself to ‘take notice’ can strengthen and broaden awareness.
Studies have shown that being aware of what is taking place in the present directly enhances
your well-being and savouring ‘the moment’ can help to reaffirm your life priorities.
Heightened awareness also enhances your self-understanding and allows you to make positive
choices based on your own values and motivations.
Take some time to enjoy the moment and the environment around you. Here are a few ideas:

Get a plant for your workspace
Have a ‘clear the clutter’ day
Take notice of how your colleagues are feeling or acting
Take a different route on your journey to or from work
Visit a new place for lunch.
Learn
Continued learning through life enhances self-esteem and encourages social interaction and a
more active life.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the opportunity to engage in work or educational activities
particularly helps to lift older people out of depression.
The practice of setting goals, which is related to adult learning in particular, has been strongly
associated with higher levels of wellbeing.
Why not learn something new today? Here are a few more ideas:
Find out something about your colleagues
Sign up for a class
Read the news or a book
Set up a book club
Do a crossword or Sudoku
Research something you’ve always wondered about
Learn a new word.
Give
Participation in social and community life has attracted a lot of attention in the field of wellbeing
research.
Individuals who report a greater interest in helping others are more likely to rate themselves as
happy.
Research into actions for promoting happiness has shown that committing an act of kindness
once a week over a six-week period is associated with an increase in wellbeing.

Appendix 13
Brexit – impact on Farming, January 2018
The post-brexit future of farming and the CAP continues to evolve. The present levels of subsidy are
now likely to be guaranteed to 2024 and it is becoming clearer that any future regime will link
subsidy to more positive environmental outcomes and to wider public access.
The viability, after 2019, of small, family hill farms faced with a changed import and export tariff
regime for lamb and beef is a major cause for concern.
[Sources: Environment Secretary speech 4 January 2018; AHDB report October 2017; AAPG on Agroecology
report and comment.]

Appendix 14 -
Sheffield City Council’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
This sets out a framework to ensure that Sheffield is more resilient to the impacts of climate change,
both in the present and the future.
Key messages for Sheffield communities
• Sheffield is already vulnerable to extreme weather, in the form of floods, droughts, heatwaves and
very cold weather. Without action, further climate change will increase the risk of severe impacts.
• Sheffield has already experienced some changes to its climate and we should expect more
extreme weather, such as heatwaves and very heavy rainfall. These are expected to become more
frequent. Very cold winters will still occur, though they should become less frequent.
• Preparing for extreme weather and further climate change is about managing risks and increasing
our resilience
• Early action today will not only manage current and future risks, but save money and create jobs
for people in Sheffield, e.g. by making buildings and homes more energy efficient and encourage
investment in ‘low carbon’ sector economy.
• Many of our vulnerabilities to climate impacts stem from Sheffield’s ‘urbanisation’ and industrial
past. Maintaining and restoring greenspaces and building community capacity will increase our
resilience and improve our quality of life.
• Sheffield’s topography and geography also contributes to our vulnerability. The catchment of
Sheffield’s rivers has steep upper reaches to the west and very flat lower reaches to the east,
leading to rapid reaction to rainfall and resulting flood events.
No single authority or organisation can be entirely responsible, or capable, of increasing our
resilience to climate risks. To effectively sustain and even increase Sheffield’s resilience, we need to
routinely consider climate change in all significant decisions the Council takes.
A more joint-up working approach across the public, private and voluntary sectors is also necessary.
The strategy we are developing will set out the framework and actions to make this happen.
Risks:
• Overheating of buildings (impact on people) and other infrastructure in the urban environment;
• Risks to health (e.g. from heatwaves and flooding) and impacts on NHS, public health and social
care services;
• Flood risk management (and coastal erosion);
• Management of water resources (particularly in areas with increasing water scarcity);
• Aspects of natural ecosystems (e.g. managing soils, water and biodiversity);
Opportunities:
• Health: fewer winter / cold weather related premature deaths;
• Economic opportunities, especially to develop adaptation products and services (advanced
manufacturing) and opportunities in the leisure and tourism industry.
Sheffield City Council’s role & approach
As an estate manager, service provider and community leader, Sheffield City Council plays a vital
part in ensuring that climate change adaptation is taking place at a local level. The Corporate Plan
2011-14 “Standing Up for Sheffield” made a clear commitment for Sheffield to be “an
Environmentally Responsible City”.

Besides the commitment to reduce carbon emissions and to improve energy security and
affordability for homes and businesses in the city, the Council also aims to make the city more
resilient to future climate change. This is about making sure that infrastructure and services of
the city are able to cope with the impacts of climate change in the future.
The Council’s role and approach will be more explicitly set out in the Adaptation Strategy that is
currently being developed. The Scrutiny Board is invited to comment further on the appropriate role
and approach for Sheffield City Council.
Evidence from the Sheffield ‘Local Climate Impacts Profile’ study (2009)
Overall the data revealed that Sheffield’s climate is changing now faster than it has at any time in the
last 125 years. The study highlighted a number of trends:
• Average annual temperatures are increasing, with almost half the increase occurring since 1990;
• The warmest years (1990 & 2006), the warmest month (July 2006) and the highest temperature
(34°C/94°F) recorded have all occurred since 1990;
• A general trend of increasing rainfall but a reduction over the last 20 years.

Sheffield Trees and Woodlands Strategy
2016-2030
Sheffield City Council
September 2016
Consultation Draft

Key Strategic Partners
Forest Schools
Forestry Commission
Froglife
National Trust
Natural England
Peak District National Park Authority
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Sheffield Green Spaces Forum
Sheffield Hallam University
Sheffield Local Access Forum
Sheffield University
Sorby Natural History Society
South Yorkshire Forest Partnership
Sport England
Woodlands Trust

Contents
Foreword ................................................................................................................................................. 1
1. Context ............................................................................................................................................ 2
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 What the Strategy Covers ....................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Legislation, Policy and Strategy Linkages ................................................................................ 3
1.4 Our Vision and Aims ................................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Strategy Monitoring and Review ............................................................................................ 4
1.6 Additional Documents ............................................................................................................ 4
2. Strategic Theme: People ................................................................................................................. 5
2.1. Benefits and Context ............................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Successful Working ................................................................................................................. 6
2.3. Using and Enjoying the Tree and Woodland Resource ........................................................... 6
2.3.1. Future Challenges ................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.2. Signage and Interpretation ..................................................................................................... 9
2.4. Community Involvement ........................................................................................................ 9
2.4.1. Community Tree Planting (Community Forestry) ................................................................... 9
2.4.2. Education and Outdoor Learning .......................................................................................... 10
2.4.3. Volunteers and Groups ......................................................................................................... 11
2.4.4. Ranger Service ....................................................................................................................... 12
3. Strategic Theme: Places ................................................................................................................ 13
3.1. Knowledge of the Resource .................................................................................................. 13
3.2. Successful Working ............................................................................................................... 14
3.3. Tree Management................................................................................................................. 15
3.3.1. Council Approach to Management ....................................................................................... 15
3.4. All Trees and Woodlands on Council Land (excluding Highways) ......................................... 15
3.4.1. Tree Surveys .......................................................................................................................... 15
3.4.2. Tree Works, Removals and Standards .................................................................................. 15
3.4.3. Veteran Trees ........................................................................................................................ 18
3.5. Tree Planting ......................................................................................................................... 19
3.5.1. Commemorative Tree Scheme ............................................................................................. 21
3.6. Tree Management in Housing Areas..................................................................................... 21

3.7 Trees in School Grounds ....................................................................................................... 22
3.8 Insurance Claims Involving Council Trees ................................................................................. 22
3.9 Sale of Council Land .............................................................................................................. 23
3.10 Woodland Management ....................................................................................................... 23
3.10.1 Broadleaf Woodlands ........................................................................................................... 25
3.10.2 Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS)................................................................... 25
3.10.3 Silviculture and Thinning Programmes ................................................................................. 26
3.10.4 The Woodland and Forest Estate .......................................................................................... 26
3.10.5 Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and United Kingdom Woodland Assurance Scheme
(UKWAS) ............................................................................................................................................ 27
3.10.6 Site Management Plans ........................................................................................................ 28
3.11 Management of Highway Trees ............................................................................................ 28
3.12 Trees on Private Land ............................................................................................................ 31
3.13 Trees and Planning ................................................................................................................ 32
3.14 Planning Guidance ................................................................................................................ 32
3.15 Planning Applications ............................................................................................................ 32
3.15.1 Legislation ............................................................................................................................. 33
3.15.2 Planning Enforcement ........................................................................................................... 34
3.16 Unsafe Trees on Private Land ............................................................................................... 34
3.17 High Hedges............................................................................................................................ 34
4 Strategic Aim: Environment and Sustainability ............................................................................ 36
4.1 Ecosystem Services and Climate Change .................................................................................... 36
4.2 Tree and Wildlife Management Policies and Procedures ........................................................... 37
4.3 Biosecurity............................................................................................................................. 40
4.4 Biomass and Firewood .......................................................................................................... 41
5. Strategic Aim: Quality Standards and Resources .......................................................................... 43
5.1 Standards for Tree and Woodland Management ....................................................................... 43
5.2 Contractors ........................................................................................................................... 43
5.3 Funding, Budgets and Grants ................................................................................................ 44
5.4 Partnership Working and Internal Collaboration .................................................................. 44
5.5 Staff, Skills and Leadership.................................................................................................... 46

Foreword
Councillor Mary Lea
Cabinet Member Culture, Parks and Leisure
Sheffield is one of the greenest and most wooded cities in Europe and also the greenest city
in Britain. The city is proud of its rich variety of urban parks, woodland, countryside and
other green spaces; they are extremely popular destinations, attracting over 25 million visits
each year.
At a time when most local authorities are going through a period of great austerity, we
cannot ignore our responsibilities for our trees and woodlands. We are custodians of this
great resource which once fuelled the industrial revolution and built the city’s reputation for
iron and steel production. We will continue to manage our tree and woodland estate
sustainably for future generations to enjoy.
Our two million trees represent nearly half of all the tree cover in Sheffield most of which
are to be found in our wonderful ancient woodlands or upland forests on the edge of the
city. We need to improve our knowledge of our tree and woodland resource to help us plan
better for the future.
This strategy complements our Outdoor City Economic Strategy showing Sheffield as a great
Outdoor City with our trees and woodlands providing wonderful opportunities for health
and relaxation. However there is still a lot to be done to address health inequalities in the
city and we will look at ways to encourage more use of our woodlands in targeted areas to
address this.
The large number of trees in woodlands, parks, streets, housing estates and cemeteries all
combine to keep the city’s air clean and provide the back drop for investment in Sheffield.
By working together we can maintain and protect Sheffield’s valuable resource, ensuring the
realisation of the wide range of benefits that trees and woodlands can offer, not just for
today’s citizens but also for generations to come. As such we will continue to replace every
tree removed in the city on a two for one basis.
It gives me great pleasure to support this Trees and Woodlands Strategy as Cabinet Member
for Culture, Parks and Leisure.
1

1. Context
1.1 Background
There are an estimated 5 million trees growing across Sheffield with over 2 million
managed by Sheffield City Council making them a dominant feature of the landscape
and collectively one of the city’s finest natural resources. Trees and woodlands
provide a wide range of important benefits for people making the city a healthier,
more attractive place to live, work and play. Environments that are rich in trees
attract inward investment, support local jobs and contribute to social, economic and
environmental regeneration. Woodlands (particularly ancient woodlands) provide
some of the most valuable wildlife habitats in the city and receive hundreds of
thousands of visits each year. Trees also provide a renewable source of timber and
other wood products. The woodland areas offer a unique natural environment and
locally accessible recreation and education resource. Our tree and woodland estate
contributes greatly to keeping the city’s air clean.
1.2 What the Strategy Covers
The Strategy covers the entire city, from trees and woodlands within the inner city to
those within the part of the Peak District National Park that falls within the Sheffield
boundary. The actions that are outlined in the Strategy focus on local authority
maintained trees and woodlands. However, it is hoped that by providing relevant
context, advice and encouragement individuals and groups will be more informed
and be able to take an active interest in privately owned trees and woodlands.
2

How the strategy is set out
Firstly we set out the Vision followed by the four main themes as defined in the
Sheffield Green and Open Spaces Strategy (People, Places, Environment and
Sustainability and Quality Standards and Resources). Within each theme there are a
number of key aims and each aim has a number of key actions. Finally, the themes,
aims and actions are linked in a 5 year action plan.
1.3 Legislation, Policy and Strategy Linkages
The Sheffield Trees and Woodland Strategy has been written in conjunction with the
Sheffield City Council (SCC) Corporate Plan 2015 – 2018 1 , SCC Corporate Tree Risk
Management Strategy 2 and SCC Streets Ahead Five Year Tree Management
Strategy 3 . The Sheffield Green & Open Space Strategy (GOSS) 2010 – 2030 4 provides
a strategic context with the details of the Trees and Woodland Strategy structured
around the same four themes; People, Places, Environment and Sustainability, and
Quality Standards and Resources. The Outdoor City Economic Strategy 5 has been
approved and provides the framework to build the city’s reputation as the Outdoor
City. A summary of relevant legislation, policies and strategies can be found in
Appendices 1 and 2.
1.4 Our Vision and Aims
Sheffield City Council’s 15 year vision for its tree and woodland resource is:
Working in partnership to provide sustainably managed trees and woodlands
which are rich, diverse, healthy, attractive, and of maximum benefit to the public
and wildlife.
Our Aims
PEOPLE – “For all current and future generations to use and enjoy”
• Aim 1: Enjoying and Raising Awareness of the Resource
We will provide opportunities for people to safely access and enjoy our trees and
woodlands and raise awareness of their benefits to the city.
• Aim 2: Community Involvement and Consultation
We will provide the public with information and opportunities to get involved
with tree and woodland management projects and proposals through
consultation, discussion and volunteering.
PLACES – “Every area of the city”
1 www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-councilCouncil/policy--performance/what-we-want-to-achieve/corporateplan.html
2 www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/parks-woodlands--countryside/trees--woodlands.html
3 www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/report_request/trees.html
4 www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/parks-woodlands--countryside/green-and-open-space-strategy.html
5 http://sheffielddemocracy.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=1525
3

• Aim 3: Sustainable Management
We will provide a tree and woodland resource which is valued, enhanced and
managed sustainably in accordance with the principles of good forestry and
arboricultural practice.
• Aim 4: Knowing the Resource
We will develop a greater understanding of the extent and value of the tree and
woodland resource and associated ecosystem services using appropriate
surveying and modelling approaches, e.g. i-Tree Eco software.
• Aim 5: Risk Management and Public Safety
We will manage the risks posed by trees to people and property based on
industry best practice and with consideration for the law, available resources and
the economic, environmental and community value of the tree.
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY – “The greenest city in Britain”
• Aim 6: A Resource for Future Generations
We will manage our trees and woodlands in a way which maintains the resource
environmentally, economically and socially for future generations.
• Aim 7 : Bio-diverse and Bio-secure Trees and Woodlands
We will maximise the benefits of our trees and woodlands for wildlife and
identify any threats to our tree stock from pests and diseases.
QUALITY STANDARDS AND RESOURCES – “Green spaces of extraordinary quality”
• Aim 8: Standards
We will manage our trees and woodlands in line with all the appropriate national
and local industry standards.
• Aim 9: Working in Partnership
We will create and strengthen existing local and national partnerships to enable
effective future management and development of trees and woodlands and
successful delivery of the actions in this Strategy.
1.5 Strategy Monitoring and Review
The Strategy and Action Plan will be reviewed on an annual basis and updated
following any significant change in legislation, policy or best practice.
1.6 Additional Documents
Two additional documents complement the Trees and Woodland Strategy.
i. a simple visual summary
ii.
a detailed Action Plan which identifies the actions required to achieve the
key aims
Please note:
The above two documents will be included in the Appendices of the final Strategy
following this consultation.
4

2. Strategic Theme: People
“For all current and future generations to use and enjoy”
2.1. Benefits and Context
There are clear and tangible benefits of trees and woodlands. The Natural
Environment White Paper 6 recognised the value and potential for green spaces to
support and contribute to everyone’s health and wellbeing. This is also reflected in the
Public Health Outcomes Framework 7 , which underpins the public health duty of local
authorities. We will make the most of the environmental, health, educational and
economic benefits of our trees and woodlands on offer to the people of Sheffield. We
aim to ensure that Sheffield’s woodland estate continues to offer a significant
improvement in the quality of life for those who visit work and play in them.
There is strong evidence of the value and benefits to people of trees within streets,
parks, open spaces and woodlands and of the importance of a healthy and sustainable
tree population, these include:
Environmental Benefits
• Improvements to air quality by filtering pollutants such as particulate matter,
CO 2 , NO x and creating barriers to ultraviolet radiation.
• Regulating and reducing high temperatures resulting from urban heat island
effects.
• Absorbing CO 2 emitted from transport, domestic and industrial processes
and acting as carbon stores.
Health Benefits
• Providing a natural environment which can reduce stress, improve wellbeing
and enhance recreation experiences.
Community and Educational Benefits
• Providing a freely accessible education resource allowing learning through
play, adventure, exploration and engaging children and young people.
• An opportunity for everyone to learn about the environment and to
participate in tree planting projects to encourage wildlife and to green their
local area.
Economic Benefits
• People prefer to live, work and play in a green, leafy environment. Studies
have shown that average house prices are up to 18% higher where property
is associated with mature trees – conversely there is a strong correlation
between poor quality environments and deprived neighbourhoods.
6 www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environment-food-and-ruralaffairs-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/the-natural-environment-white-paper/
7 www.phoutcomes.info/
5

2.2. Successful Working
A number of projects and approaches have been completed in recent years that
support the key aims of this strategy and serve as examples of best practice:
The Woodland Discovery Centre
The award winning JE Graves Woodland Discovery Centre funded through the JE
Graves Trust and operated in partnership with Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
continues to provide the focal point for our education offer for the city. Six businesses
operate from the Centre and woodland ceremonies and parties are now carried out in
several venues. A growing programme of woodland based crafts and courses are also
available.
Making Tracks
This programme has seen the development of several exciting mountain bike tracks
around the city alongside user engagement and involvement. The momentum for this
work has led to new partnerships and projects which have been crowd funded and
supported by companies including Go Outdoors and Vulcan Engineering in particular
in Parkwood Springs and Lady Canning’s Plantation with plans to extend into other
areas of the city, e.g. Redmires.
Roots of Iron
In partnership with the Friends of Wincobank Hill we have been delivering a joint
project aiming to involve young people and to celebrate the unique ancient history of
the site. The project aims to re-connect young people with the woodland site and to
celebrate its unique heritage as a former iron-age hillfort. The ‘Light Up the Hill’ event
was particularly well attended.
2.3. Using and Enjoying the Tree and Woodland Resource
Many people find a green environment relaxing. Research has been carried out in this
field for many years and provides clear clinical evidence that such surroundings reduce
stress and negative emotions, such as anger. In Sheffield, trees enhance the
recreational experience available on people’s doorsteps, in streets, parks, woodlands
and open spaces. Recently published research has identified the wellbeing benefits
gained by different groups within society through engaging with and accessing
woodlands and forests in Britain 8 . A range of projects, interventions and design
principles have been determined that are particularly effective at realising
improvements in the health and wellbeing of people.
In their final report the Independent Panel on Forestry who advised government on
the future direction of forestry and woodland policy stated:
We want as many people as possible to be able to access green space
including woodlands, for exercise, leisure and recreational purposes
8 O’Brien, L. & Morris, J. (2014) Well-being for all? The social distribution of benefits gained from woodlands
and forests in Britain, Local Environment 19 pp 356-383.
6

and in particular, we are keen to see greater multi-use access to
woodland in and around our towns and cities. We will work with
others to explore opportunities for increasing access. We believe that
this is best done at the local level, for example through the further
development of Rights of Way Improvement Plans.
Independent Panel on Forestry 2012 9
Based on research obtained from the development of the Outdoor City Economic
Strategy the majority of people using our green spaces in Sheffield enjoy walking and
dog walking, horse riding, cycling and running.
Action 1
We will work with the Local Access Forum (which produces the Rights of Way
Improvement Plan) and partners to co-ordinate improvements to public access to
our woodlands. Where possible the Ordnance Survey will be encouraged to add
more of our sites where public access is available to future revisions of their maps.
Sheffield Outdoor City Economic Strategy
Sheffield’s reputation as the ‘Outdoor City’ builds upon some important events hosted
by the city celebrating climbing and adventure sports. To acknowledge this and
develop it further we have produced an Outdoor City Economic Strategy. This
acknowledged Sheffield as one of England’s greenest cities and the only major city in
the UK to have a National Park within its boundary. The strategy identified that the
city is nationally renowned for mountain biking, and home to the country’s only city
centre mountain biking facility at Parkwood Springs. The city hosts ‘Cliffhanger’, the
largest inner-city festival dedicated to celebrating the outdoors in the UK and was
voted the ‘best city to live in for countryside lovers’ by BBC Countryfile in 2014.
Examples of our current notable projects that help support the Outdoor City Economic
Strategy include:
Run Routes
A programme supported by Sport England which will see the development of several
running routes in our woodlands.
Off-road mountain bike routes
As part of the Outdoor City initiative we will explore the potential for improving offroad
cycling facilities at a number of our sites including Lady Canning’s Plantation,
Redmires Plantation and improvements to the existing facility at Parkwood Springs.
9 www.gov.uk/government/groups/independent-panel-on-forestry
7

Self-Guided Trails
We have produced a range of self-guided trails leaflets for many of our sites and we
are developing new online and mobile technologies to enhance people’s
understanding of our sites including audio trails, smart phone Apps and QR codes.
Action 2
We will continue to develop recreational opportunities in our woodlands and
facilities to encourage participation and better health for the people of Sheffield.
2.3.1. Future Challenges
We face a number of challenges to ensure people are able to use and enjoy our trees
and woodlands in the future. They include, car parking, dog exercising, fouling, fly
tipping and the illegal use of sites by 4x4s and off-road motorbikes.
Car Parking Provision
New opportunities for funding improvements to car parks will be investigated. Where
feasible, income generation and donation opportunities for parking will be explored.
This will start with the Woodland Discovery Centre at Ecclesall Woods.
Dog Exercising and Dog Fouling
The majority of dog walkers using our sites are responsible people who clean up after
their pets. Unfortunately a growing number allow their dogs to defecate on paths,
jump up at people or let them wander off with the risk that ground nesting birds are
disturbed. This is compounded by the increased number of people employed as
professional dog walkers who sometimes can have up to 7 dogs in their care which can
be intimidating and in some cases lead to a significant increase in dog fouling adjacent
to public paths.
Fly Tipping
The cost of dealing with fly tipping on green spaces in 2016 was in excess of £60,000
including the need for a dedicated litter team. We need to reduce this cost by trying to
identify those responsible and taking the necessary legal action. We will invest in
dedicated CCTV equipment and carry out covert monitoring and targeting where the
problem persists.
4x4 and off-road motorbikes
Illegal motorcycling and off-road activity has increased in a number of our woodland
sites in particular Westwood Country Park, Wincobank Hill, Gleadless Valley and
Shirebrook Valley. Appropriate barriers will be maintained at all key access points, e.g.
K barriers. Where boundary fencing has been removed to gain illegal entry it will be
replaced where possible. We will continue to monitor this problem and work with
South Yorkshire Police on joint initiatives to tackle the issue at key locations.
Action 3
In partnership with other agencies we will explore measures for preventing the
abuse of our woodland sites from illegal activities.
8

2.3.2. Signage and Interpretation
The ‘Sheffield Standard’ which is used as a minimum quality standard for our sites
requires them to be adequately signed (Appendix 3). We are constantly reviewing our
on-site signage and interpretation and looking at funding opportunities to improve
how we communicate our vision and information about sites and features. Previous
successful funding sources have included: Heritage Lottery Funding for Ecclesall
Woods and Wincobank Hill and Planning Gain from Section 106 funding 10 .
Action 4
We will maintain adequate site signage and where funding can be identified,
provide additional on-site interpretation where it is required making best use of new
technologies like QR codes.
2.4. Community Involvement
A true and sustainable woodland culture needs to be built from the
ground up and must be based on the needs, interests and enthusiasm
of local people.
Independent Panel on Forestry
Sheffield Council Parks and Countryside Service has a long tradition of community
involvement harnessing additional experience, knowledge and skills. We currently
involve the community in a range of ways, e.g. Sheffield Green Spaces Forum, Friends
Groups, individual and corporate volunteers and the Sheffield Woodland
Environmental Enhancement Project (SWEEP). Community involvement and
participation will be based on the framework of participation (Appendix 4) and will be
determined by the type of project and the resources available.
Action 5
We will review our current commitment to community involvement on our sites
considering where we have made significant recent investment in green spaces and
where we have the greatest need.
2.4.1. Community Tree Planting (Community Forestry)
Community forestry has been a real success for Sheffield with the good practice
recognised nationally in the Trees in Towns II survey published by DCLG 11 .
Approximately 100,000 new trees have been planted in our open spaces over the past
five years, over 90,000 of these were planted through community forestry and a
significant proportion have been undertaken with close community involvement.
Community forestry programmes have a vital role to play in maintaining sustainable,
10 S106 overview www.pas.gov.uk/3-community-infrastructure-levy-cil/-
/journal_content/56/332612/4090701/ARTICLE
11 www.researchgate.net/publication/262857090_Trees_in_Towns_II_A_new_survey_of_urban_trees_in_Engl
and_and_their_condition_and_management
9

safer, healthier green spaces that are welcoming to residents and that encourage a
sense of ownership.
Community tree planting is an inclusive activity involving local people, schools and
community groups at each stage from planning and decision making, through to
implementation, planting and tending the trees. A key factor in the success of planting
schemes is the early involvement and engagement of the local community. Schemes
that have been co-designed with local residents are likely to be looked after, ‘policed’
and valued by a community who feel a sense of ownership for the scheme.
Community forestry projects in Sheffield have included tree planting to improve local
parks and green spaces, school grounds, transport corridors, pocket woodlands and
commercial centres and the successful delivery of youth programmes and school
holiday activities. The cost of a tree is a fraction of its potential value when you
consider the beneficial impact it can have on the environment for hundreds of years.
Action 6
We will involve and engage the local community in community based tree planting
projects wherever possible and work in partnership with other organisations to
continue the good work we have started.
2.4.2. Education and Outdoor Learning
Trees and woodlands are an educational resource allowing children to learn through
play, adventure and exploration. The benefits of outdoor play and learning are well
documented and supported by national organisations such as the Scouts and the
National Trust. Forest School initiatives offering outdoor activities are very popular in
the city. Children can also learn about the value of the environment through
participating in tree planting projects to encourage wildlife, and to green their local
area. Adults also benefit from learning about woodlands. Woodlands provide a
valuable resource for local interest groups of adults who cherish the woodland
environment for its natural, historic, archaeological and artistic merits.
The J G Graves Woodland Discovery Centre continues to be at the heart of our
education offer providing pre-planned and bespoke opportunities including craft
courses, wild play and theatre workshops. We have developed this offer by working
in partnership with other organisation in particular the Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust. We have brought together people with valuable skills and experience
which they share and pass on to others.
Action 7
We will look at how we can sustain our education offer in the future through a
service level agreement with the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust.
The Trees and Woodland Team has a strong reputation for supporting children’s
activities delivered mainly at the Woodland Discovery Centre at Ecclesall Woods.
Some of the initiatives are highlighted below:
10

Woodland Toddlers
We have a growing interest in providing good quality children’s facilities and the
toddler group operating at the Discovery Centre reflects this.
Grow Theatre
We support a creative group of young people based at the Woodland Discovery
Centre. They have produced an imaginative audio trail around the woods which can
be heard via headphones available to hire from the centre.
Craft Courses
To complement our offer to people at the centre we have developed an exciting
range of craft courses that allow people to re-connect with traditional woodland
crafts including hurdle making and green woodworking on a pole lathe. Information
on the variety of craft courses available can be found
at: www.ecclesallwoodscraftcourses.co.uk
Events
We run a small number of events from the Woodland Discovery Centre including
Feast in the Forest and Spring into the Woods and we will continue to do so where
resources exist.
Forest Schools and Schools
Sheffield has the reputation as the home of Forest Schools and over the years many
Forest School activities have developed throughout the city. We will continue to
support Forest Schools activity and requests from people to use our woodlands
through appropriate agreements whilst ensuring that quality standards are being
met. The Ranger Service can offer support to schools where grants support school
visits, e.g. the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme. Where capacity allows bespoke
opportunities can be arranged for an appropriate fee.
2.4.3. Volunteers and Groups
A significant number of people in Sheffield volunteer their time (in excess of 5,000
hours per year), and are part of organised groups which contribute to, manage and
have an interest in trees, woodlands and green spaces within the city. Involvement
includes practical management and maintenance of green spaces, publicising
activities and events, fundraising, promoting and protecting these natural assets for
all to enjoy.
Volunteers
These are the stewards of the natural environment and ambassadors for the
outdoors. Becoming a volunteer brings opportunities, skills, knowledge and
confidence to those involved. Younger people particularly benefit from the
experience and volunteering opportunities within the outdoor recreation network.
With a high proportion of work in this sector being seasonal, volunteering offers
many young people their first taste of life in a work place environment. We have a
strong reputation for working with volunteers and we will maintain this
commitment. The Sheffield Woodland Environmental Enhancement Project (SWEEP)
11

which operates from the Woodland Discovery Centre at Ecclesall Woods is one
example.
Action 8
We will continue to offer opportunities for engaging with the community and
volunteering. Opportunities exist with the Rangers through individual and
corporate volunteering or placements.
Groups
There are over 70 Friends groups and a citywide Sheffield Green Spaces Forum, all of
which contribute to help maintain, publicise, promote and protect Sheffield’s
valuable green spaces. The Ranger Service works with many of the active groups
which include:
Friends of Ecclesall Woods
Friends of Wincobank Hill
Rivelin Valley Conservation Volunteers
Sheffield Conservation Volunteers
Friends of Porter Valley
Friends of Gillifield Wood
Beauchief Environment Group
Grenoside Conservation Group
2.4.4. Ranger Service
Sheffield has a team of Rangers whose primary role is to engage and support Friends
groups in practical conservation work and volunteering opportunities. In addition the
Rangers have a land management role supporting the Woodland and Ecology Teams
with practical works and woodland risk assessments. They also carry out ‘Sheffield
Standard’ assessments for our greenspaces. The ‘Sheffield Standard’ is a minimum
quality standard that we aspire to for our sites around cleanliness, safety and
adequate signage (see Appendix 3). Education work continues to be delivered from
the Woodland Discovery Centre where outreach work is funded through the Higher
Level Stewardship Scheme.
Action 9
The Ranger Service will continue to provide support to volunteers, community
groups and Friends groups working on our sites. They will be our primary
naturalistic site management resource.
12

3. Strategic Theme: Places
“Every area of the city”
Often described as one of the greenest cities in Europe, Sheffield is estimated to have
around 5 million trees, with over 2 million of these trees managed by the Council. These
large areas of woodland, parks, open spaces and street trees are a natural resource which
provides a strong sense of place not often found in densely populated areas. In addition to a
fantastic setting our woodlands provide sustainable products; home-grown timber,
charcoal, biofuel, paper and food. Within Sheffield the Council has responsibility for trees
found on a number of land types including tenanted farms, housing areas and in school
grounds.
3.1. Knowledge of the Resource
Numerous surveys have been carried out over the years to establish a baseline for
the number of trees managed by the Council. These surveys have included levels of
tree cover, the range of species present and age profiles. However, further updates
to this information are required to assist us in our ongoing planning and
management. An internationally recognised approach is to use a digital survey
system such as i-Tree Eco Software developed by USDA Forest Service. i-Tree Eco is
designed to:
13

• Characterise the structure of the tree population; numbers, species, age and
condition.
• Quantify tree benefits such as air quality improvement, CO 2 uptake and
stormwater control.
• Assess the value of the annual benefits derived from these functions.
We aim to roll out the use of i-Tree Eco over the next year and carry out sample
plots across the city. This will enable us to gather detailed and accurate information
from which we can further develop our knowledge and understanding of trees and
woodlands in Sheffield. Results from this comprehensive approach will be used in
the annual review of this Strategy.
Action 10
We will commission and implement a survey of trees in Sheffield using i-Tree Eco
Software and use this to review the strategy where necessary at its first review
following completion of the survey.
3.2. Successful Working
A number of projects and approaches have been undertaken in recent years that link
with the key aims of this Strategy and serve as examples of best practice:
Tree Planting - Community Forestry
Over the last five years approximately 100,000 trees have been planted on land
owned and managed by the Council including in parks, housing areas, school grounds
and development sites. Tree planting has also been undertaken on land owned by a
range of partner organisations including: parish councils, housing associations,
sheltered housing and the Peak District National Park Authority. Historically sites
have included reclaimed land and industrial corridors such as the Lower Don. One
focus of this tree planting programme has been to bring greater environmental
equity to neighbourhoods across the city providing more people with local trees and
woodlands and their many associated benefits. Many of these trees have been
planted through the nationally recognised Community Forestry programme with
direct involvement from the local community.
Urban Nature Programme
The Urban Nature Programme (UNP) is a capital funded project working to change
the way our green spaces are managed. By reducing management activities such as
grass cutting on sites and increasing woodland planting the programme aims to
increase ecological value and biodiversity.
Tree Risk Management Strategy
In 2010 the Council adopted the Corporate Tree Risk Management Strategy. Based
on industry guidance and best practice, the strategy aims to assess and measure risk
in the tree population for which the Council has responsibility and to ensure work is
only carried out on trees posing an unacceptable risk. The policy covers all nonhighway
Council owned trees.
14

3.3. Tree Management
3.3.1. Council Approach to Management
The trees and woodland of Sheffield are, collectively, one of the city’s greatest
assets, providing a range of benefits for the public and making urban areas more
interesting and agreeable places within which to live, work and play. However by
growing trees in an urban environment we also increase the potential for conflict
between trees, people and property. Poorly sited trees close to living areas can
cause nuisance issues. Large fast growing species growing on shrinkable clay soils can
cause subsidence related damage to buildings, leading to costly repairs and tree
removal. Trees with structural weaknesses and decay are liable to failure causing
injury, death and property damage. Whilst all of these issues exist to some degree
they can all be reduced and eventually avoided by a planned strategic approach.
Approaches to management are defined by area, i.e. housing areas, school grounds
etc.
3.4. All Trees and Woodlands on Council Land (excluding Highways)
3.4.1. Tree Surveys
All Council sites containing trees are subject to periodic inspections carried out by
appropriately qualified staff. In most instances the inspection process is based on
risk assessment procedures with the period between inspections ranging from 1-5
years depending on site priority. Priority is based on the surrounding site usage, i.e.
non-highway trees near busy roads are inspected more regularly than those beside
woodland footpaths. We also carry out Tree Condition Surveys based on British
Standard 5837:2012 Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction where
development is being considered on Council land.
Carrying out surveys of our tree stock is important for gaining an overview of tree
condition across a site and to ensure public safety through the appropriate
management of risk. Surveys allow us to monitor the health and overall condition of
the stock enabling us to identify decline in individuals or groups of trees as well as
locating or monitoring outbreaks of pests and diseases. In particular, it enables us to
identify trees that pose a risk to people or property.
3.4.2. Tree Works, Removals and Standards
Enquiries
The Council receives approximately 1500 enquiries each year in relation to trees and
woodlands. The Council aims to respond to all enquiries within appropriate
designated timescales and in a clear and concise manner. It is standard practice for
all enquiries to be logged on the Council’s Confirm asset management system to
monitor and track the enquiry where appropriate.
15

Action 11
The Council will aim to answer all enquiries in line with the Council’s Customer
Charter 12 within designated timescales and in a clear and unambiguous manner.
Tree Risk Management
The Council has a ‘duty of care’ to protect people and property from harm caused by
trees owned or managed by the local authority. This duty is set out in the Occupiers
Liability Act 1957 & 1984, the Highways Act 1980 (particularly section 130) and
Health & Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 (for bystanders sec 3(1)). A breach of this duty
may give rise to a claim of negligence from the injured party. In the case of trees,
negligence may arise by the omission of the owner to take sufficient care of a tree
and to deal reasonably with foreseeable hazards.
Since 2010 the Council has operated the Corporate Tree Risk Management Strategy
for all trees on Council land (except highway trees whose risk management falls
within the Streets Ahead Five Year Tree Management Strategy). The Corporate Tree
Risk Management Strategy incorporates a clear process of inspection, remedial work
and record keeping that is in line with current industry best practice. This work is
essential to meet the Council’s ‘duty of care’. Once trees have been assessed as
posing an unacceptable risk to people or property remedial work is undertaken to
minimise that risk to an acceptable level.
Action 12
The Council will carry out the systematic survey of trees on Council land along with
any necessary remedial work within agreed timescales as detailed within the
Corporate Tree Risk Management Strategy.
Requests for Work
In most cases the Council will only carry out work to trees within our parks,
woodlands and open spaces where:
• an assessment has identified a potential hazard such as significant decay,
structural weakness or any evidence of likely imminent failure in line with our
Tree Risk Management Strategy
• there is proven tree root subsidence damage to property
• branches are touching buildings
• vehicle or pedestrian safety is compromised or sightlines are required to be
maintained e.g. road signs, street lights etc.
Tree Removal
There are a number of reasons why a tree may need to be removed. These reasons
may include:
• The tree is in a hazardous condition (and meets the criteria within the Corporate
Tree Risk Management Strategy).
12 https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/how-to-contact-us/complaint/customer-charter.html
16

• The tree has been found to be causing (or is a contributory factor in) subsidence
related damage or direct damage to property, and removal is considered to be
the most appropriate course of action
• To make way for approved development or engineering works
• As part of a thinning operation to select trees that are considered to be more
desirable for retention
• The tree is self set, in an inappropriate location and is likely to cause problems in
the near future
• To abate an actionable nuisance
• The work is part of an agreed commercial forestry operation
Where tree removal is necessary and site management aims allow, we will consider
retaining standing stems and/or leaving felled timber on site to allow natural decay
processes to take place and create valuable wildlife habitat.
Nuisance Issues
Nuisance issues are those that occur through the natural and sometimes seasonal
growth of trees. Issues such as shade can occur gradually over a long period of time,
whereas leaf drop is usually confined to a short period in autumn. In most cases the
issues present an inconvenience rather than causing a risk of injury or damage to
property. People’s perception of whether a particular tree is causing a nuisance also
differs widely. Under normal circumstances the Council will not undertake pruning or
removal work in direct response to natural or seasonal growth including:
• Trees blocking light and causing shading, including tall trees and those with overhanging
branches (except those touching houses)
• Branches obstructing telephone wires
• Blocking or obstruction of views
• Trees interfering with TV or satellite reception
• Falling leaves, flowers, fruit or honeydew drip
• Blocked gutters
• Bird droppings
• Seeds from trees that have germinated in gardens
• Moss caused by shade
‘Actionable’ nuisance occurs where the growth of a tree is causing or likely to cause
actual damage to property. This may occur through branches rubbing against a
building or roots lifting and cracking boundary walls. In such cases where it is agreed
that the tree is causing an actionable nuisance, the Council will consider carrying out
work to remedy the situation.
Action 13
All enquiries or requests for nuisance related tree work will be dealt with on a case
by case basis and the person making the enquiry will be informed of the Council’s
decision within the appropriate timescale.
17

Common Law
Under Common law the owner of a property may prune back any overhanging
branches to their boundary line. However before doing so the owner of the property
should contact the local planning authority to check whether the tree is protected by
a Tree Preservation Order or is within a Conservation Area (See section 3.15.1 -
Legislation). Before carrying out any pruning the owner of the property should also
consider whether the work may lead to the tree becoming unsafe. For this reason it
is always advisable to inform the Council of the intended works before undertaking
them.
Right to Light
In law there is no general right to light. Any right to light would need to be
established via a specific grant (rare) or by prescription, which can only occur where
the right has been enjoyed uninterruptedly for a minimum of 20 years (Prescriptions
Act 1832). Following this, a legal right to light can only be enjoyed in relation to a
specific opening (such as a window) in a building; there is no right to light in
connection with open land, such as a garden. If these conditions are met then the
owner of the building is ‘entitled to such access of light as will leave his premises
adequately lit for all purposes for which they may reasonably expect to be used’. If
natural light is being blocked by the growth of a hedge then action may be taken to
reduce the problem under the High Hedges Act, Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour
Act, 2003 (see also section 3.17 – High Hedges).
Vandalism and Illegal Felling
The Council does sometimes experience issues with vandalism or illegal felling of
trees in our parks, woodlands and open spaces. In each case we will investigate and
deal with it appropriately. In the case of vandalism to newly planted trees, where
appropriate we may consider planting larger trees as a way to reduce further
vandalism alongside involving the local community to encourage a greater sense of
ownership and posting site notices to discourage further acts of vandalism.
Action 14
The Council will investigate all cases of vandalism and illegal tree felling. Where
appropriate, we will take necessary action which may include prosecution of those
responsible and recovery of costs to compensate for any loss of trees.
Tree Work Standards
All tree work undertaken on Council managed trees will be carried out in accordance
with British Standard 3998:2010 Tree Work – Recommendations (and any future
amendments). In certain circumstances work may be carried out in accordance with
other accepted arboricultural guidelines such as those for veteran trees or for
wildlife habitat considerations.
3.4.3. Veteran Trees
Veteran and ancient trees are distinct from large mature trees because of the wealth
of wildlife habitats that form through the ageing process. These rot-holes, dead
wood, decay fungi, and other features provide food and shelter for a large range of
18

flora and fauna, including some protected species. The decay and other physical
defects associated with these trees can affect their safety and they must therefore
be managed carefully to preserve the rich and rare habitats whilst minimising risk to
the public. The Council also encourages the creation of these habitats to promote
the next generation of veteran and ancient trees by following Natural England
Veteran Trees Guide to Good Management 13 . This can be achieved, for instance, by
managing the gradual decline of large mature trees rather than simply felling them,
where it is safe to do so, or by leaving standing stems of smaller trees to regrow
safely while developing rot-holes and dead wood.
Action 15
The Council will follow current industry best practice such as Natural England’s
Veteran Trees: A Guide to Good Management in managing its veteran trees.
3.5. Tree Planting
Tree planting is an essential part of sustainable tree management. A key risk to the
sustainability of any tree population is an uneven distribution of tree ages. Tree
populations that contain a high percentage of old trees are at risk as large sections of
the population could decline and die over a short period of time and there would be
few younger trees to replace them. Ideally any tree population should contain a
balance of young, medium aged and older trees to ensure there is a natural process
of succession.
A tree population with little diversity of species is at risk from new pests and
diseases that in many cases target individual species. In a worst case scenario the
pest or disease may spread rapidly through a single species causing widespread loss.
The Council is committed to sustainable tree cover across the city and will develop
an appropriate tree planting strategy based on the following key elements:
Site Availability and Existing Tree Cover
We will review the Council land holdings along with data from the i-Tree Eco survey
to identify sites where new tree planting may be appropriate. We will prioritise sites
considering criteria such as existing levels of tree cover, maximising environmental
benefits (improving air quality, flood prevention, enhancing wildlife habitat), as well
as increasing the visual amenity value of sites. Consideration for the existing
landscape character will help inform decisions on species, numbers and location of
new planting.
Species Selection
Consideration will be given to the ‘Right Tree in the Right Place’ 14 (Appendix 5) and
British Standard BS8545:2014 to maximise environmental and amenity benefits
13 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/75035
14 Greater London Authority (2005) Tree and Woodland Framework for London
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/ltwf_full.pdf/$FILE/ltwf_full.pdf
19

whilst minimising future nuisance issues and unnecessary maintenance costs. Where
we intend to interplant, create or restore semi-natural habitats we will aim to use
locally native species.
Site Selection
Choosing a site where new trees are likely to thrive is important. Consideration will
be given to soil type and volume, environmental conditions such as drainage and
exposure to strong winds, as well as levels of light/shade. Different sizes of trees are
appropriate to different locations. In prominent locations especially where a wellknown
tree has been removed, replacements should be of a suitable size, e.g. extra
heavy standard, in order to make an immediate impact. In other well used park
locations where individual trees are to be planted, heavy standard specimens should
be used. In locations with greater potential pressures from antisocial behaviour a
larger tree may also be planted. Larger stock is less prone to vandalism and also has
a greater chance of successful establishment.
Quality of Tree Stock
By choosing good quality tree stock from reputable suppliers we will help to ensure
good future form and structure and increase the chances that the new trees will
thrive.
Standards and Best Practice
As many as 25% of all tree planting fails 15 . In order to minimise failure rates all tree
planting and aftercare will be guided by current best practice.
Community Forestry
Community forestry aims to work with the community to promote trees, the value of
new tree planting and creating a sense of ownership. This involves working in
partnership with local people, groups, schools and other organisations in decision
making about tree planting locations, accessing external funding and planting the
trees. Practical involvement by young people and schools is prioritised in tree
planting schemes as engaging with young people has been shown to reduce
instances of antisocial behaviour alongside the many benefits trees can bring.
Partnership Working & Funding Opportunities
We will seek out and work closely with existing and new partners and funders to
maximise the potential for new planting schemes.
Tree Planting Numbers
As a minimum we aim to plant two trees for every one removed using a mixture of
tree species and sizes as appropriate to the site and conditions. This aim covers all
trees on Council land, including highway trees. It does not cover trees removed in
naturalistic areas such as woodlands where felled trees are likely to be replaced
through natural regeneration or where removals are part of a commercial forestry
operation. An aspirational target is to plant 7,000 trees per year, made up of a
15 www.researchgate.net/publication/262857090_Trees_in_Towns_II_A_new_survey_of_urban_trees_in_Engl
and_and_their_condition_and_management
20

mixture of sizes including heavy standard, standard, feathered trees and whips.
Replacement trees will not always be planted in the same location or near to where
the original tree stood. We will however, maintain a record of trees removed
through the year along with the new trees planted to ensure we meet the aims of
the strategy.
Action 16
We will aim to maintain a diverse and sustainable tree cover through the planting
of new trees in appropriate locations.
Action 17
We will develop an appropriate strategy for future tree planting across the city.
This will be informed by the findings of the i-Tree Eco survey.
Action 18
We will follow the ‘Right Tree in the Right Place’ guidelines when considering new
tree planting.
Action 19
We will aim to plant a minimum of two trees for every one we remove from Council
land.
3.5.1. Commemorative Tree Scheme
The Council offers the opportunity for organisations and members of the public to
plant a tree within our open spaces to celebrate a special occasion; a birth, marriage,
or even to mark the end of someone’s life. We will help to choose an appropriate
location and species of tree. The event can also be marked by signing the
Commemorative Tree Register. Enquiries are taken all year round with the aim of
planting the tree between the start of November and the end of March. The size of
tree that we usually plant under this scheme is ‘heavy standard’ which are typically
around 3 metres high and around 10 years old.
3.6. Tree Management in Housing Areas
It is estimated that there are around 100,000 trees on land managed by Sheffield
City Council Housing Services including trees in tenants’ gardens, communal gardens
and open spaces. These trees are subject to the same survey, inspection and
management processes as trees on other Council managed land via a Service Level
Agreement (SLA) between Housing Services and the Parks and Countryside Service.
This agreement also includes a programme of tree planting based on the Council’s
Community Forestry model.
Under the Council’s existing tenancy agreement, tenants are expected to keep
gardens tidy and to not allow them to become overgrown. However, tenants are not
expected to carry out significant pruning or felling work to large trees within their
gardens. As part of the existing SLA, trees in tenants’ gardens are subject to routine
inspection in order to detect and reduce risks to health and safety or potential
21

damage to property. Tenants are able to make requests for pruning works to the
relevant area housing office. Each request will be investigated in conjunction with
the tree officer and any decision to carry out work will be based on individual
circumstances.
Action 20
Trees on land managed by Housing Services, including those in tenants gardens will
be managed in line with the standard Council approach to tree management via a
Service Level Agreement.
3.7 Trees in School Grounds
Trees are an important part of the school environment. They provide shade, create a
varied setting and environment for creative play and are a valuable resource for
children’s education and enjoyment. This natural resource provides children with the
opportunity to understand the value of the natural world and the importance of
looking after our environment.
A tree management and advice service has been offered to schools (via paid
subscription) in Sheffield since April 2006. The service has been designed to assist
schools in meeting their legal responsibilities around tree risk management but also
includes the provision of advice and assistance in promoting sustainable tree cover
and the integration of trees and their benefits into the day to day activities of the
school.
Action 21
The Council will continue to offer a service to schools to promote the sustainable
management of their tree stock and encourage the integration of trees into school
activities and children’s education.
3.8 Insurance Claims Involving Council Trees
From time to time the Council may receive claims of damage where Council trees
have been implicated. Claims may be for either direct or indirect damage. Direct
damage may typically involve damage caused by falling trees or branches, whereas
indirect damage may involve tree root growth and function that may be causing
damage to boundary walls, driveways and to buildings due to subsidence.
Where Council managed trees are implicated in building damage as a result of
subsidence, the onus will be on the claimant to provide technical evidence to
support such a claim. Evidence may include the following:
• Engineers report on assessment of damage to building
• An arboricultural report detailing trees and vegetation in relation to the area
of building damage
• Results from trial pit excavations showing the soil profile beneath the
foundations
• Root identification from beneath the foundations
• Soil analysis
22

• Level/crack monitoring
Where claims are made against the Council for damages to drainage systems, light
structures such as garden boundary walls, prefabricated garages etc. the onus will be
upon the claimant to provide technical evidence to support such a claim.
In all instances claims should be sent to the Councils Insurance & Risk team. Where
claims are for instances of direct damage, claimants should send a letter of claim
including 2 estimates of repair.
Action 22
When dealing with insurance claims we will request relevant technical evidence in
order to enable the Insurance and Risk Team to make an informed decision on
liability and to determine whether trees need to be pruned or removed.
3.9 Sale of Council Land
Where Council land is being considered for sale, the change of ownership from
council to private owners may result in an increased risk of existing trees being
removed. In order to retain valuable trees it is important that existing trees are
inspected and any protection placed on them prior to the land being sold.
Action 23
All land being considered for sale will be checked for existing trees. Where
appropriate, trees of significant value will be considered for statutory protection
through a tree preservation order (TPO).
Action 24
Before any of the Council’s rural land holdings are disposed of we will try and
secure additional tree planting and access improvements.
3.10 Woodland Management
Sheffield’s woodlands are an integral part of the landscape and green heritage of the
city. A number of the woodlands date back to before the 16 th century and have been
managed for hundreds of years as an important source of raw material. The early
steel industry was fuelled by charcoal produced in the city’s woodlands until this was
replaced by coal, coke and electricity. Since the 1900’s the woodlands of Sheffield
have been an escape from the bustle of city life and as important places for
recreation, wildlife and heritage. The Council now has Forest Stewardship
Certification (FSC) for all its woodlands and forests. This is under-pinned by the
United Kingdom Woodland Assurance Scheme (UKWAS) and allows the Council to
increase its income from the sale of timber and to manage sites sustainably.
• Sheffield is one of the most wooded cities in Britain with woodland covering
4000 Hectares (Ha), around 10% of the land, compared to around 8% in other
cities in England.
23

• The Council owns just over 1500 Hectares woodland with the rest (2500
Hectares) in private ownership.
• 31% of woodlands are coniferous forest approximately 400 Hectares and 67% are
traditional broadleaf 1100 Hectares.
• The Council manages 180 woodland sites of which 70 (650 Ha) are ancient
woodlands which means they have existed from at least 1600 AD.
• On average the Council plants 20,000 trees and harvests 4000-5000 tonnes of
timber predominantly from our conifer plantations annually.
• All woodlands have free public access.
• All Sheffield City Council woodlands are FSC certified, which means that they
meet an international standard of sustainable woodland management under
pinned by the UKWAS.
• Two sites; Ecclesall Woods and Wheata Woods have reached Green Flag
standard, a nationally acknowledged standard for greenspaces.
• The Woodland Trust publication Space for People 16 identifies there is a
significantly higher level of access to woodland in Sheffield than is found
regionally and nationally.
Data: Woodland Trust, 2015
In the past decade there have been several projects which have provided a major
boost to improving the management of the Council’s woodland resource, they
include:
16 http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/publications/2015/02/space-for-people/
24

Fuelling the Revolution – The Woods that Founded the Steel Country
This Heritage Lottery funded project secured investment to improve the
infrastructure of 35 ancient woodlands within the city and the South Yorkshire
Forest area, e.g. Roe Woods, Bowden Housteads Wood and Wheata Woods.
Following the successful implementation of the project the key improvements were:
• Enhanced landscape heritage importance, protection of the historical value
and improved nature conservation quality.
• Sites can now be managed in a sustainable way using normal revenue
budgets and where appropriate, supplemented by modest timber incomes
and government grants.
FSC Accreditation
Having secured Forest Stewardship Certification (FSC) Sheffield Council woodlands
meet an internationally recognised standard and can command a better price for
timber.
Woodland Grant Scheme (Forestry Commission)
Although the grant is coming to an end and will be replaced by ‘Countryside
Stewardship’ the Woodland Grant Scheme has allowed us to manage our estate for
access and thinning work to encourage specific species of birds via the Woodland
Improvement Grant for Birds.
3.10.1 Broadleaf Woodlands
The majority of Sheffield’s broadleaf woodlands are managed under a ‘Continuous
Cover’ policy which is focused on health and safety work supported by minimal
intervention and selective felling/ thinning where access is available. The topography
of the city means that many of our broadleaf woodlands exist on steep valley sides
and support a sensitive and distinctive habitat typical of ancient woodlands. This
makes more intensive management uneconomic and potentially damaging. Where
good quality timber can be cost effectively extracted to the roadside with minimum
disturbance to ground flora we will carry out felling and thinning work.
Action 25
Sheffield will adopt a Continuous Cover management approach to its broadleaf
woodlands prioritising health and safety works. Any additional thinning works will
be achieved via grants.
3.10.2 Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS)
Sheffield has 126 Ha of Plantations on Ancient Woodlands Sites (PAWS). Additional
funding through the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and the Forestry Commission
could enable the restoration of PAWS sites back to traditional broadleaved
woodland. Five sites exist at:
Gillifield Wood
Upper Porter Clough
Rough Standhills
25

Bowden Housteads
Tinsley Park
Action 26
We will aim to return Plantations on Ancient Woodlands Sites (PAWS) to their
original composition where this is cost effective to do so and where grants are
available.
3.10.3 Silviculture and Thinning Programmes
Around 400 Ha of the woodland estate is conifer plantation planted in the 1950s and
60s around the Redmires and Bradfield areas and around the Ewden Valley
reservoirs. Significant investment in site infrastructure has been completed over the
last 20 years to enable the plantations to be managed.
Informed by the Peak Design Plan a programme of thinning and clear fell has been
developed for the next 20 years. In 2015/16 we thinned White Lee Moor Plantation,
Thompson House Plantation and several compartments around Redmires called
Fairthorn Plantation. In 2016/17 Wragg House Plantation and Lady Canning’s
Plantation will be thinned. An extract of the Forest Design Plan showing our thinning
work over the next few years can be seen in Appendix 7
Income generated from this thinning work cross subsidises the work in our urban
estate. In an average year we extract 4-5,000 tonnes of timber mainly from our
conifer plantations. Where sites have been identified for thinning or clear felling an
assessment of the timber tonnage is carried out to guide their future managements
and tenders are sought from forest contractors to complete the works.
Action 27
The Council will continue to manage its conifer plantations in a sustainable manner
and will extract timber in line with recommendations from the Peak Design Plan
and the approved felling licence. This will be achieved through selective thinning
until a final clear fell of the compartments is required.
Action 28
When a compartment of conifer plantation is clear felled we will replant with
appropriate species determined by the long term vision outlined in the Design
Statement approved by the Forestry Commission. Where landscape and
biodiversity considerations have a greater priority than timber production we will
encourage natural regeneration of broadleaved trees.
3.10.4 The Woodland and Forest Estate
The woodland and forest estate is split into two parts each having a Forest Design
Plan. The Peak Design Plan covers the western half of the city including the area
within the Peak District National Park and is dominated by commercial forestry
plantations. The Urban Design Plan covers the east of the city and contains the
majority of our broadleaved woodlands many of which are classed as ancient
26

woodlands. The plans inform when and where to carry out thinning and extraction
work and have associated felling licences approved by the Forestry Commission. This
allows us to extract timber at a sustainable level to maintain the health of the
woodland stock and to generate income. The plans are agreed and funded by the
Forestry Commission and are a requirement to access their new Countryside
Stewardship fund.
Action 29
The Council will keep its two Forest Design Plans reviewed, to take advantage of
new funding opportunities. These will inform our long term future management
decisions.
3.10.5 Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and United Kingdom
Woodland Assurance Scheme (UKWAS)
All of Sheffield’s woodlands are accredited to FSC and UKWAS standards. The FSC
promotes best practice internationally in sustainable forest management and
enables the well-known branding to be used by those who comply with the
standards. It also allows the Council to command a quality premium for the timber it
sells. FSC accreditation is underpinned by UKWAS. Each year the Council is audited
against eight areas to ensure it complies with the UKWAS standard:
• Compliance with the law and conformance with the requirements of the
certification standard
• Management planning
• Woodland design, creation, felling and replanting
• Operations
• Protection and maintenance
• Conservation and enhancement of biodiversity
• The community
• Forestry workforce
Action 30
The Council will maintain Forest Stewardship Council accreditation for its woodland
and forest estate on an annual basis and will comply with the eight UKWAS
standards.
Heritage and Archaeology
Sheffield has a unique legacy of industrial heritage and archaeology which has
helped to shape its woodland estate. Bronze Age cup and ring art has been found on
stones in Ecclesall Woods for example. References to Saxon and Viking place names
can be found across the city, e.g. Norton Lees, Totley and High Storrs and place
names incorporating Lees and Ley, meaning wood clearing, suggests places where
people lived and cleared woodlands for agriculture. The history of Ecclesall Woods
can be traced back to 1066 and the area has a history of white coal extraction for
lead smelting, leading to a coppice with standards regime of woodland management.
In the 1650’s John Bright and his family owned the woodland for over 200 years and
27

the coppice wood was leased to a lead merchants for lead smelting at local leadmills.
This network of woodlands also provided fuel for the region’s early iron industry and
helped to form the area’s rich cultural and historical heritage. At this time wood
colliers would be making charcoal in the wood which was used in the early iron and
steel industry that Sheffield’s reputation as a steel producer was built on. The
complex of woods in Sheffield and the wider South Yorkshire area are a significant
heritage asset.
Action 31
We will ensure that archaeology and local heritage features are surveyed and if
necessary protected before we carry out any work on our woodland estate. Where
resources allow we will provide appropriate interpretation to raise awareness of
these features.
3.10.6 Site Management Plans
It may be necessary to develop detailed site management plans for specific areas of
woodland or open space. In 1992 the Council, in partnership with the South
Yorkshire Forest was successful in securing Heritage Lottery Funding for the
management of 20 ancient woodlands. As part of this initiative specific management
plans were produced for these sites.
Action 32
On woodland sites where resources and funding are secured, the Council will
continue to produce management plans to inform future management options.
General Nuisance and Abuse of Woodlands
Misuse of our woodland estate comes in a myriad of forms from arson to drug
dealing and occasionally this leads to a perceived danger of woodlands by certain
sections of the community. We will continue to work with South Yorkshire Police if
criminal activity is being carried out on our sites.
The Woodland Team receive around 800 enquiries each year regarding a wide range
of uses and abuses from our 180 woodland sites. A significant number of enquiries
relate to nuisance trees overhanging gardens. We will only carry out works to trees
where they are touching a property or present a risk of failure and damage to
property.
We want to ensure that people continue to report problems so that we can provide
a clean and safe environment for people to enjoy.
3.11 Management of Highway Trees
Since 2012, highway trees have been managed under a 25 year highways contract
between Sheffield City Council and the contractor Amey. The current approach to
the management of all of Sheffield’s highway trees is detailed in the Streets Ahead
28

Five Year Tree Management Strategy 2012-2017 17 . This document is reviewed
annually. The Council’s approach to managing highways trees has the following
strategic goals:
• Maximise potential canopy cover through species selection, good establishment
and good arboricultural management.
• Establish a sustainable tree stock through improved planting design and
appropriate management.
• Minimise future maintenance costs through species selection and appropriate
management.
• Establish a resilient tree stock through species diversity and species selection.
• Maintain Sheffield’s tree heritage by protecting and conserving where
appropriate.
• Increase biodiversity through species selection and protection of habitats.
• Ensure a safe tree stock through good tree management and protection.
• Improve compatibility with environment through holistic highway design and
management.
• Improve public relationship with highway trees through positive engagement and
good management.
• Improve understanding of benefits of urban trees through communications and
events.
• Improve function of highway trees through innovative design strategy.
Key elements of the Streets Ahead Five Year Tree Management Strategy are as
follows:
Tree Inspections
An annual inspection of around 25% of the highway tree stock will be undertaken on
a rolling cyclical programme. This work will only be undertaken by appropriately
qualified inspectors. From 2018 onwards, once the street tree stock has been
brought up to an improved standard, the inspection cycle will move to an annual
20% inspection within a five year cycle.
Pruning
All pruning work will be specified and undertaken to the standards set out in
BS3998:2010 Recommendations for Tree Work. When specifying pruning works the
impact on long‐term tree health and sustainability will always be considered in
conjunction with Council policies, highway safety, social impacts and legal
requirements.
General pruning will be undertaken as a regular maintenance requirement for all
mature trees to ensure they meet the minimum standards expected on the highway
as defined both in legislation such as the Highways Act and also in national best
practice such as BS 3998.
17 www.sheffield.gov.uk/highwaytrees
29

Pruning or crown reduction will not be carried out on the grounds of shading,
disruption to TV or satellite signal, nor for perceived “nuisance” such as nesting
birds, seasonal fruit, leaf or blossom fall, all of which are part of the natural life cycle
of a tree.
Removals
The removal of street trees will only be considered as a last resort where there are
no other reasonably practicable and affordable management and engineering
options available to ensure safety or prevent damage to surrounding structures.
Factors in coming to a recommendation include the impact of a disease on the
future health of a tree and whether sensitive engineering solutions can rectify
damage to a footway or carriageway.
During the 5 year core investment period when trees have been identified for
replacement as part of the programme of upgrades to the roads and pavements the
process below is followed:-
• Streets Ahead using its 6D’s approach identify if trees are either Dead, Dying,
Dangerous, Diseased, Damaging or Discriminatory
• Proposals are developed based on input from experienced and qualified highway
and tree specialists who review whether there are any reasonably practicable
and affordable engineering solutions that can retain a tree
• Proposals for replacing trees are put to households on a street by street basis
through a survey
• If 50% or more of respondents to the survey object to the proposals they are
then sent to an Independent Tree Panel who consider the proposals and provide
advice to the Council
• The Council considers the advice and then comes to a final decision
• The advice letter and the Council’s final decision will be published before any
work is carried out on the street. Further detail on this process is available on the
Council website https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-yourarea/report_request/trees/independent-tree-panel.html
Highway trees will not be removed because of:
• The construction or widening of driveways.
• Disruption to television or satellite signals.
• Perceived nuisances such as seasonal leaf, blossom or fruit fall, or nesting birds.
• Shading issues.
Trees that are dangerous will always be removed without notice or additional
communication to keep the highway and its users safe.
Planting
Specific locations for individual replacements will be chosen to minimise conflict with
surrounding infrastructure both above and below ground. Where possible, locations
will be chosen that minimise negative impacts on adjacent properties and allow for
future access requirements. The default location is the site of the tree removal but
there are often instances where that is not possible. In these situations, trees will
30

typically be relocated on the same road in order to ensure no reduction in street tree
numbers along a particular street. Where this is not practicable, priority will firstly be
given to replanting within the same neighbourhood and then failing this, deferring to
additional planting requests made by customers within the same area of the city. All
replanting species will be chosen with suitability and sustainability in mind and to
minimise conflict with both structures and people.
Communications
All planned tree replacement work and significant pruning work will be notified to
Councillors and residents prior to work commencing.
Action 33:
All comments regarding the management of highway trees received through the
wider Trees and Woodlands Strategy consultation process both now and from the
initial consultation in February 2016 will be considered when carrying out the next
annual review of the Streets Ahead 5 Year Tree Management Strategy
Action 34:
Where we plan to remove existing street trees as part of the Streets Ahead works
to upgrade the roads and pavements in Sheffield during the 5 year core investment
period we will send letters to every household within the street requesting their
views on the removals. Where 50% or more of responses disagree with the
proposals, we will refer the proposals to the Independent Tree Panel.
Action 35:
Where Streets Ahead remove highway trees, we will plant replacement trees in the
same location wherever possible. Where we remove trees as part of a specific
highway improvement scheme, we will replace them on a two for one basis.
3.12 Trees on Private Land
It is estimated that more than 50% of tree cover in Sheffield is located on private
land. This includes trees in residential gardens, those on commercial property as well
as those in private woodland estates. In order to promote appropriate management
of trees on private land the Council will endeavour to engage with landowners to
offer advice and promote best practice. Currently this includes:
• providing advice on best practice via the Councils website and social media
• Supporting events in public spaces to promote good tree and woodland
management
• Promoting the value of planting trees and providing information on available
resources/grants that may assist this aim
Action 36
The Council will develop processes to engage with private tree owners to
encourage good arboricultural management of trees on their land.
31

3.13 Trees and Planning
The presence of mature trees can add significant value to new developments and
their retention and protection throughout the development process is considered to
be highly desirable, providing a sense of establishment as well as retaining an
existing landscape.
The Council receives approximately 4000 applications every year for new
development across Sheffield. Applications can range from minor extensions on
residential houses to large scale commercial developments. Existing trees within the
site and those on adjacent sites can be irreparably damaged by construction work
through direct damage (root severance, vehicle damage to trunk or branches) or
indirect damage (soil compaction). The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (section
197) charges local authorities with a specific duty ‘ to ensure, whenever it is
appropriate that, in granting planning permission for any development, adequate
provision is made by the imposition of conditions for the preservation and planting
of trees'.
3.14 Planning Guidance
The Council adopted the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 18 as the statutory
development plan for Sheffield in March 1998. It consists of a policy document and a
proposals map. The proposals map and many of the policies ('saved policies')
continue to form part of the development plan alongside the more recent Core
Strategy. The Core Strategy was adopted in March 2009. It is the first of the planning
documents of the Sheffield Development Framework (SDF). Its purpose is to answer
the question "At a strategic level, what is going to happen where and how is it going
to happen?" It sets out the overall vision, objectives and spatial strategy and policies
for Sheffield over the period to 2026.
3.15 Planning Applications
Planning applications are assessed by a Planning Officer. Consideration is given to
any views received from interested parties and any alterations required can be
discussed with the applicant. A recommendation is then made to grant or refuse
planning permission. The impact on existing trees and opportunities to plant new
trees are considered as part of the application process. In large or complex cases, a
full tree survey will be required to inform the decision.
Applicants can appeal against a refusal of planning permission or against conditions
applied to an application. Applicants can also appeal against non-determination of a
planning application if it remains undetermined after the target date. Only applicants
can lodge an appeal, there is no right of appeal for third parties (e.g. objectors to an
application). The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of
one person against the activities of another, although private interests may coincide
with the public interest in some cases. The basic planning question is not whether
owners or occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other
18 https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/planning-and-city-development/planning-documents/udp.html
32

loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably
affect amenities, which ought to be protected in the public interest.
Action 37
We will resist development, where we consider it makes inadequate provision for
the retention of trees and other natural features, particularly wildlife habitats such
as woodlands.
Action 38
We will seek to retain appropriate existing trees on development sites and may do
this through the use of Tree Preservation Orders or planning conditions including
appropriate tree protection measures as laid out in BS5837:2012.
Action 39
We will encourage appropriate tree planting within new developments to create
wildlife corridors and where possible create larger areas of continuous tree cover to
contribute to improved local biodiversity. Where appropriate, we will encourage
the planting of large, long lived tree species within new development sites.
3.15.1 Legislation
Tree Preservation Orders
Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) are made by the Council as Local Planning Authority
to protect specific trees, groups of trees or woodlands in the interests of amenity.
Trees are usually protected by an Order when their removal would have a significant
negative impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public.
An Order prohibits the cutting down, topping, lopping, uprooting, wilful damage and
destruction of trees without the Local Planning Authority’s written consent. If
consent is given, it can be subject to conditions which have to be followed.
Conservation Areas
Sheffield has 38 conservation areas. These are ‘areas of special architectural or
historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or
enhance’. Trees contribute to both the character and appearance of an area and are
therefore subject to conservation area planning restrictions. Before undertaking
work to a tree in a conservation area six weeks notice must be given to the Local
Planning Authority. During this period the Local Planning Authority may choose to
make a TPO to prevent works to the tree or decide not to make a TPO and inform
the applicant the work can proceed. Alternatively the Authority can allow the six
week period to expire after which the work can also proceed.
Hedgerow Regulations
The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 are designed to give protection to important
hedgerows. Anyone proposing to remove a hedgerow, or part of a hedgerow, which
is covered by the regulations, must first notify the Council as Local Planning
Authority by submitting a Hedgerow Removal Notice. The Regulations apply to any
33

hedgerow which grows in, or adjacent to any common land, Local Nature Reserve,
Site of Special Scientific Interest, or land used for agriculture, forestry or the
breeding or keeping of horses, ponies or donkeys if – it has a continuous length of at
least 20 metres, or it has a continuous length less than 20 metres and at each end
meets another hedgerow.
Further relevant legislation can be found in Appendix 1.
Action 40
There will be a presumption against the cutting down or inappropriate pruning of
any tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Where consent is granted for
removal it will be conditional upon appropriate replacement of the tree.
Action 41
We will continue to protect significant trees by the use of Tree Preservation Orders.
3.15.2 Planning Enforcement
The Council will investigate unauthorised work to trees and hedgerows and will
pursue enforcement action as and when required.
Action 42
Any unauthorised works to protected trees will be investigated and enforcement
action taken where appropriate.
3.16 Unsafe Trees on Private Land
The management of trees on private land is the responsibility of the owner of the
land. Any disputes between neighbours in regard to trees on their land should be
resolved between the parties. The Council has powers (Miscellaneous Provisions Act)
to require the tree owner to make safe a tree that is deemed to pose an immediate
threat to property but these powers should only be used once reasonable discussion
between the parties has taken place and the issue cannot be resolved. Where trees
on private land are considered a threat to users of the highway or public footpaths
then the Council has powers under the Highways Act to require that the owner
makes the trees safe.
3.17 High Hedges
If your neighbour owns an evergreen hedge close to your property, over 2m in
height and you believe it affects your light, you can make a formal complaint to the
council under the High Hedges legislation as set out in Part 8 of the Antisocial
Behaviour Act 2003. There is usually a charge for this and the Council will consider
the complaint using standard government guidance. If your complaint is successful
the council will determine an Action Height to which the height of the hedge must be
reduced. The act covers both loss of light to gardens and windows of main living
rooms.
34

To comply, the hedge must be formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or
more evergreens or semi- evergreen rising to a height of over 2 metres. Work cannot
be ordered that results in the demise of the hedge or it being reduced below
2metres. The hedge owner has a right to appeal but can be fined up to £1000 if they
fail to comply and the Council can undertake this work and recover their costs from
the owner.
35

4 Strategic Aim: Environment and Sustainability
“The greenest city in Britain”
There is strong evidence that trees and woodlands provide a large range of positive
environmental benefits. The presence of trees on open ground can help reduce the
risk of flooding by retaining water, regulating flow and buffering against run-off.
Groups of trees form wildlife corridors and links between the city centre and
countryside providing important wildlife habitats for shelter, breeding and foraging,
helping to maintain biodiversity in the city. Trees provide us with other useful
products such as charcoal, bio fuel, paper and food for ourselves and for wildlife.
4.1 Ecosystem Services and Climate Change
The natural world, including its biodiversity, provides us with services that are critical
to our wellbeing and economic prosperity.
Woodlands provide a wide range of ecosystem services. These include
provisioning (fuel and fibre), supporting (soil formation), regulating
(climate, flood, noise, and air quality regulation), and cultural (cultural
heritage, amenity, health, recreation and tourism) services. Ecosystem
service provision is sensitive to land management objectives.
UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011 19
Carbon Sequestration and Air Temperature
It is estimated based on the current volume of production of woodlands (8800 m 3
per year growth being added) that Council managed woodlands absorb 8000-9000
tons or CO 2 per annum. This is broadly equivalent to the level of CO 2 emissions
created by 44 million car miles or 3700 cars driving 12,000 miles per year.
Flooding
In 2007 Sheffield was hit by serious flooding affecting most of its rivers but in
particular the River Don and River Sheaf. Since then work has been carried out to
identify opportunities to improve river water quality and river water management.
Our trees and woodlands play an important role in absorbing rainfall, helping to
mitigate the effects of increased rainfall and extreme rainfall events on upland
catchments and subsequent downstream flooding. We will explore new
opportunities for woodland planting to aid in this type of water management.
The Council has embarked on a consultation process to protect Sheffield from
further flooding and has secured over £60 million to implement a range of projects
to assist with food alleviation. Several projects have implications for our woodlands
including Gillifield Wood and Whiteley Wood. In addition there could be great
19 Valatin, G. and Starling, J. (2011). Valuation of ecosystem services provided by UK Woodlands, appendix to
chapter 22 of UK National Ecosystem Assessment, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
36

opportunities to plant additional trees as part of the rural land management
proposals in the project.
Action 43
We will explore new opportunities for woodland planting to aid in water
management and raise any concerns we have over flood alleviation schemes
proposed for our ancient woodland sites.
Biodiversity
The Convention on Biological Diversity 20 defines biodiversity as the variability
among living organisms including terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems and
the ecological complexes which they are part of; this includes diversity within
species, between species and of ecosystems. Put simply it is the diversity of life on
Earth, encompassing species of flora, fauna and their habitats.
All types of woodland can be valuable for biodiversity from young woodland and
plantations through to ancient woodlands. Outside woodlands individual trees such
as ‘veteran trees’ or groups within hedgerows, orchards, parks and areas of scrub
can hold significant nature conservation value. Structural aspects of woodland are
important for biodiversity including mature trees, closed canopy or shaded
woodland, young re-growth of trees and shrubs, coppice, clearfells, young
plantations, glades (both temporary and semi-permanent), rides and woodland
edges. Features such as availability of deadwood (standing and fallen) and wetlands
contribute to the diversity of species found within woodlands. Some 284 insect
species 21 are associated with oak (Quercus robur and Q. petraea) and species such as
the Purple Hairstreak butterfly (Favonius quercus) are associated with a mature oak
canopy. Other tree species may not be associated with a large variety of insect
species e.g. sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), but may harbour an abundance of
these insects which in turn form an important food source for other animals such as
birds.
Most woodland has been altered by human activities over time, effective
management is required to maintain the nature conservation value of woodlands.
This is recognised in Sheffield Local Biodiversity Action Plan 22 .
4.2 Tree and Wildlife Management Policies and Procedures
Our Biodiversity Duty
The Natural Environment and Rural Community Act 2006 (NERC) states:
20 https://www.cbd.int/convention/
21 Southwood, T. R. E. (1961) The number of insect species associated with various trees. Journal of Animal
Ecology, Vol 30, No. 1, pp 1-8
22 https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/out--about/parks-woodlands--countryside/ecology-unit/biodiversityconservation-in-sheffield/sheffield-local-biodiversity-action-plan.html
37

Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, in
so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to
the purpose of conserving biodiversity.
As a public authority we can demonstrate having regard to conserving biodiversity
by:
• Developing strategies such as the Trees and Woodlands Strategy and putting
it into practice
• Managing our woodlands and trees with consideration for wildlife
Protected Sites and Species
We will comply with our legal obligations, government and local policies applicable
to protected sites and species. Information will be sought from Local Records
Centres and other relevant local nature conservation organisations. Analysis and
application of the data will be used to inform the requirement for surveys and tree
or woodland management.
Designated Sites
Sheffield has a number of designated sites, i.e. Local Nature Reserves, Local Wildlife
Sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) with tree and woodland features,
and sites afforded ancient woodland status. 16 of our woodlands are designated
Local Nature Reserves and 5 sites are designated as SSSI.
Action 44
All Council woodlands designated as Local Wildlife Sites will be in positive
conservation management.
Priority Habitats and Species
The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (Section 41), UK
Biodiversity and Local Biodiversity Action Plans will be used to identify species or
habitats that should be given a priority for protection during management
operations. For example the Song Thrush, Soprano Pipistrelle Bat and White Clawed
Crayfish are all listed as priority species in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan and exist in
our woodlands.
Action 45
We will work with Natural England to verify the status and extent of ancient
woodland in Sheffield.
Birds in Trees
With approximately 2 million trees spread over 2000 green spaces, it is not surprising
that the Council cannot avoid carrying out tree work all year round. In particular,
dangerous trees can be encountered at any time of the year and require remedial
work within specific timeframes. We do however undertake a number of measures
to reduce the likelihood of work being carried out in the main bird nesting season (1 st
March – 31 st August). Such measures include:
38

• Scheduling planned risk assessments of sites where risk of disturbing wildlife
is greater (e.g. woodlands) so that any resulting work takes place outside the
nesting season
• Avoiding carrying out other non-essential work within the main nesting
season
In all circumstances no removal of hedgerows, trees or shrubs that may be used by
breeding birds will take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive except
under the following circumstances:
• A competent person has undertaken a careful, detailed check of vegetation
for active birds’ nests immediately before the vegetation is cleared
and
• There is written confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or there are
appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site.
In all cases the Council and its contractors will follow the guidance given in
Arboricultural Association Guidance Note 10: Protected Species and Arboriculture
(2010) 23 .
Management of Specific Species
There are a numerous guides available on woodland management for specific
habitats and species. We will have regard to current guidance on management of
trees, woodland features, habitats and species. We will promote the preservation,
restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the
protection and recovery of protected and priority species populations, linked to
national and local targets.
Tree Planting
Where it is intended to interplant, create or restore semi-natural habitats, stock
should be of locally native species and where appropriate reflect similar local
assemblages or habitats of ecological importance. Natural regeneration should be
considered where appropriate. Current guidance on climatic and disease resilience
should also be considered.
Current and Future Surveys
Surveys shall be of an appropriate type for the habitats and/or species and survey
methods shall follow national good practice guidelines. British Standard BS
42020:2013 Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning development provides good
guidance and recommendations on ecological surveys and reporting. We will follow
this guidance and recommendations where appropriate. We will also follow specific
good practice guidance where available such as BS 8596:2015 Surveying for bats in
trees and woodland.
23 Arboricultural Association (2010) Guidance Note 10: protected Species and Arboriculture.
39

Action 46
We will aim to ensure that all tree and woodland management on Council land is
carried out with appropriate consideration for biodiversity.
4.3 Biosecurity
The threat to our trees from native or imported pests and diseases has never been
greater. Amongst the many recent introductions, the UK has witnessed outbreaks of
Oak Processionary Moth, Asian Longhorn Beetle and Horse Chestnut Leaf Miner
along with diseases such as Ash Dieback, Horse Chestnut Bleeding Canker and
Ramorum / Larch tree disease. Many of these have been identified in or near
Sheffield and could pose a significant threat to a wide range of tree species across
the city. If such pests and diseases became established they would have a
detrimental effect on the overall landscape, bring an associated loss of amenity,
wildlife habitat and ecosystem services.
New pests and diseases can enter the country through a number of channels
including imported trees which are already affected, through eggs and larvae
attached to packing cases and timber products, through insect flight and as airborne
spores. The predicted effects of climate change could result in an environment
suitable for the establishment of a wider range of pests and disease. In order to
minimise the risk of new arrivals as well as identifying and dealing with outbreaks, it
is important that the Council has appropriate procedures in place.
Sourcing New Trees
We will aim to source our trees from nurseries within the UK who have an
appropriate biosecurity management process. If this is not possible and there is no
other suitable alternative to importing trees then we will insist that imported trees
are placed in quarantine at a suitable nursery that employs appropriate biosecurity
management procedures for a minimum of 1 year.
Managing Existing Trees to Minimise Risk of Infection
There are a number of actions that we can take to reduce the risk of attack from
pests and disease. Trees that are in good condition are less likely to succumb to pests
and diseases than those that are under stress. We will aim to maintain a healthy tree
stock through appropriate management along with providing the right conditions in
which they can thrive. We will also continue to develop and maintain a diverse range
of species of all ages to make our tree stock more resilient to mass infection as most
pests or diseases target individual species or trees within a certain age range.
Detection and Management of Outbreaks
Through ongoing education and training we will maintain up-to-date knowledge of
current risks so officers are able to identify new pests or diseases and have
information on how best to deal with outbreaks when they arise.
40

Minimising the Spread of Pests and Diseases
Where there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of either introducing or spreading
unwanted pests and diseases within our sites, we will carry out appropriate risk
assessment procedures to minimise that risk. Control measures may include
disinfection of clothing or tools as well as the method of movement and disposal of
cut material (timber, branches, twigs and leaves).
Action 47
Our tree and woodland management practices will be carried out in such a way to
minimise potential biosecurity threats.
4.4 Biomass and Firewood
Biomass is biological material that can be used as fuel such as wood. In 2012 the
government launched its UK Bioenergy Strategy. In respect to wood and timber
products this links to the UK Forest Standard. The UK Forest Standard sets out the
Government’s approach to sustainable forest management in the UK, regardless of
how the wood is ultimately used. The Government’s timber procurement policy
requires all domestic and imported wood products procured by central Government
bodies and agencies to meet legality and sustainability criteria or to be licensed
under the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade measures. Local
government and the wider public sector are also encouraged to comply with these.
In addition, the EU timber regulation is designed to ensure that only legally
harvested timber can be placed on the EU market. Enforcement of this new
regulatory framework and the Government’s procurement policy could help ensure
forest based bioenergy supply chains develop sustainably.
There is a growing interest in biomass in the city and several wood-fuel / biomass
boilers have been installed to provide heat and power to a number of Council owned
buildings. It has always been an aspiration in the city to make a contribution to using
biomass to generate energy and to offset the Council’s carbon footprint. Whilst
efforts have been made in the past to connect our forestry management to this
process it has been difficult to establish an economic local market for woodchip and
firewood.
Over 50% of Sheffield’s forest timber is sold as wood chip and it is likely that some of
this will return to the city as a fuel source. Saw logs (large diameter logs) and bars
(small diameter logs) are processed into fencing which is supplied to companies in
Sheffield, however this is beyond the control of the Council and relies on the
commercial market for supply and demand. South Yorkshire Forest is exploring
opportunities for the production of wood chip in the city however much more needs
to be done to establish a sustainable market in the city. This also includes
opportunities for planting short rotation coppice on suitable and available land.
One of the greatest challenges for our ancient woodlands is to manage them in a
more commercial way gaining income for wood products like firewood. Our
broadleaved woodlands are managed primarily for nature conservation, wildlife and
recreation and not for timber production. Sensitive ecology and steep sided valleys
41

make the extraction of timber for firewood particularly difficult in comparison to the
commercial conifer plantation which has received significant amounts of investment
in capital infrastructure funds to develop extraction rides and roadside stacking
areas. Where standing timber is easily accessible to the road side extraction
becomes more feasible and economically viable however our conservation and
recreation objectives should not be compromised.
Action 48
We will explore with partners the opportunities for generating wood based
products as a fuel source and, where markets and site management objectives
allow, encourage the retention and use of wood as a fuel source in the city.
42

5. Strategic Aim: Quality Standards and Resources
“Green spaces of extraordinary quality”
In order to assist with monitoring and evaluating our performance as a Council and a Parks
and Countryside Service a number of quality standards exist which have been adopted and
which are described below. The current level of resources which are available to us allow us
to comply with these standards. Any reduction in resources, e.g. revenue budgets could
impact on our ability to deliver these standards. This will be monitored each year at the
annual review of the Strategy.
5.1 Standards for Tree and Woodland Management
The Council is committed to managing its tree and woodland resource using
guidance from a wide range of appropriate published standards and industry best
practice. These include but are not limited to the following:
• British Standard 3998:2010 Tree work - recommendations
• British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and
construction - recommendations
• British Standard 8545:2014 Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape
- recommendations
• FSC: Forestry Stewardship Council
• UKWAS: UK Woodland Assurance Scheme
• Green Flag
• Sheffield Standard
• National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) Volume 4 – Guidelines for the Planning,
Installation and Maintenance of Utility Apparatus in proximity to Trees
• Trees & Design Action Group (TDAG) - Various publications
Action 49
The Council will consider available quality standards and industry best practice
when making decisions on the day-to-day management of its trees and woodlands.
5.2 Contractors
All contractors working on Council managed trees or woodlands will adhere to
current industry best practice such as BS3998. Currently all contractors engaged in
tree work contracts will have been through a series of initial checks before being
added to the approved Council suppliers list and will be subject to ongoing spot
checks and assessment. Our aim is to move to a position where we only use
Arboricultural Association approved contractors for all tree surgery work contracts.
Action 50
We will move to a position of only using Arboricultural Association approved
contractors for all arboricultural contracts. We will aim to complete this process by
the end of 2017.
43

5.3 Funding, Budgets and Grants
Reductions in local authority funding have necessitated the need for generating
income through grants and other external funding sources. Accessing these sources
of funding has been achieved by working in partnership with others. The main
sources of funding and grants come from a variety of sources some of which are
listed below:
• Timber Income
• Internal Fees and Charges
• External Fees and Charges
• Heritage Lottery Fund
• Forestry Commission
• Natural England
• Sport England
• Fundraising via Friends Groups
• Crowd Funding
• Legacies
• Donations
• Planning Gain (Section 106)
• Philanthropic Trusts (J G Greaves Trust)
• Academic Research
• Consultancy
5.4 Partnership Working and Internal Collaboration
In Sheffield there are many national and local organisations and groups involved in
tree and woodland management and related activities. National organisations have a
role providing advice, funding and statutory functions. Local organisations have
more varied roles in terms of site management or community engagement; the
Council, private tree and woodland owners (both commercial and members of the
public), specialist interest groups and other organisations, including those from the
voluntary sector all play their part.
Internal within Sheffield City Council
The Council is responsible for the city’s public trees and woodlands and is charged
with providing the necessary care and attention to this large resource of over 2
million trees, in the same way that it is responsible for all other items of public
property. Within the Council responsibility is divided between different services
including those with landholding and client responsibilities, such as Parks and
Countryside or Sheffield Housing Service and those with statutory functions such as
Planning and Environmental Heath. Some services choose to employ other services
with the necessary expertise to manage their trees and woodlands. The key services
are as follows:
• Parks and Countryside: Directly manage over 90% of Council trees – most of
which are situated within our woodlands, parks and open spaces. The team
44

also manages trees via a service agreement with other departments such as
Housing Services and Transport and Facilities Management.
• Planning: Provide a statutory function in dealing with applications to prune or
remove trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders or those within
Conservation Areas as well as trees on development sites.
• Sheffield Housing Service
• Schools
• Streets Ahead: Manage the 36,000 highway trees in partnership with the
private contractor Amey in delivering the 25 year Highways PFI contract.
Other Agencies
Woodlands Trust - UK's largest woodland conservation charity, protect and
campaign on behalf of this country’s woods, plant more trees, and restore ancient
woodland for the benefit of wildlife and people.
National Trust - an organisation dedicated to preserving the cultural heritage of a
particular geographic region. Although the focus of the National Trust may vary by
region, the principal role is to ensure the preservation of historically significant
items, and to conserve natural areas. The Council are working in partnership with
the Trust as part of the Sheffield Moors Partnership.
The Peak District National Park Authority - has a similar range of functions to
Sheffield City Council and covers part of Sheffield to the west. It acts as the Planning
Authority for that part of the National Park in the city
South Yorkshire Forest Partnership – covers the east and parts of north and south
Sheffield and is involved in a range of initiatives focused on the economic
contribution of trees and community tree planting.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust - working in partnership with the Council to
manage a number of sites in the city including Blacka Moor, Wyming Brook,
Crabtree Pond and Blackburn Meadows and delivering the education offer from the
Woodland Discovery Centre at Ecclesall Woods
Voluntary Sector Groups and Organisations – these are mainly community based
groups participating in various aspects of the planting, management, maintenance
and use of the urban forest. They include all our Friends Groups.
Specialist Interest Groups – e.g. Sorby Natural History Society, act in an advisory
capacity, or are involved in conservation projects, record-keeping or lobbying.
National and Other Organisations – these principally provide advice and/or funding
whilst some have statutory functions, e.g. Forestry Commission and Natural England.
45

Private Sector – there are a large number of private and commercial tree and
woodland owners. Many contribute towards the urban forest by sustainably
managing their own trees or woodlands.
Action 51
Building on our existing arrangements we will continue to develop strong
partnerships with national, regional and local environmental organisations in the
city which are beneficial to our trees and woodland objectives.
Some of the notable successes are:
• Forestry Commission - Woodland Improvement Grant for Birds
• Natural England - Nature Improvement Area and Higher Level Stewardship
• Sport England - Run Routes and Making Tracks
• South Yorkshire Forest - Fuelling the Revolution and Objective 1
• Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust - Blacka Moor, Wyming Brook and
Blackburn Meadows
• National Trust - Burbage and Houndkirk Moors and Porter Valley work
• Froglife - Linking Nature to People
• Forest Schools - Sheffield Hallam University
• Community Forestry - Urban Nature Programme
• Friends Groups - fundraising
• Sheffield’s Local Area Partnerships- grants for improvements to local woodland
for example The Lumb in Gleadless Valley.
• Trees for Cities - free trees
5.5 Staff, Skills and Leadership
One of the Council’s Corporate Plan priorities is to value our employees who are vital
to delivering high quality services for Sheffield. The Council recognises that a skilled
and well trained workforce supported by good leadership is essential in delivering a
quality service. Staff have regular 1-1’s, supervision and appraisals offering
appropriate training opportunities.
Action 52
We are committed not only to grow our trees but also to grow our staff and
volunteers. We will do this through regular 1-1’s and through our annual appraisal
reviews which identify relevant staff training and development needs.
46

Appendix 1
Relevant Trees and Woodlands Legislation
National Legislation
Legislation affects how the Council manages its own trees and how we approach the
management and protection of privately owned trees. The following list offers brief
guidance on the most relevant legislation.
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
The Town & Country Planning Act 1990 places a duty on Local Planning Authorities to
protect trees and woodlands through the creation of Tree Preservation Orders and the
application of conditions when granting planning permission.
Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999
(Part VIII Sections 197 – 214)
These regulations put into place procedures that enable Local Planning Authorities to make,
confirm, vary and revoke Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) and for processing applications
for works to trees protected by a TPO and notifications for trees protected by Conservation
Areas under the Conservation Area General Regulations 1992.
Forestry Act 1967 (as amended)
This Act is primarily aimed at commercial forestry and woodlands, controlling the felling and
subsequent replanting of trees; however the felling of trees outside of woodlands is also
controlled by the Act.
The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981
This Act prohibits the intentional or reckless destruction of certain plants and animals
including all wild birds, their nests, or eggs. For example, it is an offence to disturb birdnesting
sites and bat roosts. Offences committed under the Act are investigated and
enforced by the Police.
The Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006
The NERC Act places a duty on public authorities, including Councils and Local Planning
Authorities to conserve biodiversity when exercising their functions.
47

Conservation (Natural Habitats & c) Regulations 1994
This Regulation puts into place a European Union Directive that protects European
protected species, such as bats and their roosting sites.
Highways Act 1980
Section 154 of this Act gives the Council powers to deal with trees and vegetation
considered to be a danger to highway users.
Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976
This Act gives discretionary powers to the Council to deal with dangerous trees located on
private land. Trees are the responsibility of the person who owns the land on which they are
growing. However, if a tree on private land becomes dangerous in a way that could harm
someone else or their property and the owner does not appear to be doing anything about
it, the Council can act to make the tree safe. This can be by serving a notice on the owner to
make the tree safe or, in exceptional circumstances, the Council can deal with the tree
themselves and recover costs from the owner. These powers are used as a last resort and
are only intended for situations when there is an imminent danger.
Health & Safety at Work Act 1974
This Act places a duty on employers and employees whilst carrying out their work duties to
take reasonable steps to avoid incidences that would be harmful to themselves or other
people. This includes the prevention of the foreseeable failure of trees and tree surgery
works undertaken by the Council.
The Occupier’s Liability Act 1957 & 1984
These Acts impose a duty on land owners and occupiers to take such care as is reasonable to
see that visitors to their land, including those who do not have permission to be there, will
be reasonably safe. With regard to trees, this means that the risks associated with them is as
low as reasonably practicable.
Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 (Part 8)
Part 8 of The Anti Social Behaviour Act (2003) enables local authorities to investigate
disputes between neighbours relating to the height of an evergreen hedge. The Act requires
the complainant to have taken initial steps to try and resolve the dispute amicably before
involving the Council. The local authority is not required to mediate or negotiate between
the complainant and the hedge owner but to decide whether the hedge is adversely
affecting the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of their property. When adjudicating on
high hedge complaints, the authority has to take account of all relevant factors from both
parties and ensure a balanced decision is made.
48

Appendix 2
Policy Framework
National Policy
National Forestry Policy
The Independent Panel on Forestry report published in July 2012 recommended:
• The need to develop a new woodland culture and a resilient forestry and woodland
sector,
• The value of the Public Forest Estate, which will continue to benefit from public
ownership, be held in trust for the nation and be managed by a new, operationallyindependent
body,
• The importance of protecting our woodland assets,
• The need to bring more woodland into active management and increase the extent
of woodland cover in England,
• The need to help the sector to find its voice and improve its economic performance,
• The importance of preserving and maximising the social and environmental benefits
provided by trees and woodlands, particularly in and around our towns and cities,
• The scope for developing new markets based around a better understanding of the
value and potential of our trees, woods and forests,
• The value of retaining a skilled cadre of forestry experts within the public sector.
The Panel’s report underpins a refreshed Government forestry policy. This policy is based
around a clear hierarchy of priorities: protecting, improving and expanding our public and
private woodland assets. It also reflects key Coalition principles, such as economic growth,
localism, deregulation, targeted government intervention and value for money.
Natural England
According to Natural England (2013) 42.4 million adults in England visited the natural
environment, spending 21 billion pounds /year. Outdoor recreation is recognised as being
good for both mind and body. Getting active outdoors is associated with lower levels of
stress, tension and depression and increased self-esteem and energy levels. Added
enjoyment of being outdoors can encourage us to be more active more regularly.
The outdoors offers communities:
• a valuable social space and can alleviate social isolation,
• helps people be happy and healthy,
• helps children and young people achieve their potential,
• contributes to the national economy,
• demonstrates its economic and social value,
• is accessible to everyone
• should be protected.
49

Sport England
Department for Culture, Media and Sport to recommend Sport England continues to take an
active role in the outdoor recreation sector, following up on its early insight work - Getting
Active Outdoors - and ensures that the next round of Sport England funding from 2017 looks
at the ‘whole active person’ and includes outdoor recreation as one of the sport solutions
The Council is working closely with Sport England to secure funding for a range of activities
like Run Routes and Making Tracks.
e.g. Forestry Commission, Natural England, Sport England , Public Health
Other relevant strategies
The strategy is guided and informed by various other national and international strategies,
policies and directives etc. These include the Kyoto Agreement (1997) which establishes
targets for the reduction in greenhouse gases. Other relevant national strategies, plans and
standards include the England Forestry Strategy (1999), the UK Forestry Standard (1998)
and the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (1995) all of which relate to conservation and
sustainable management. There is also the UK Climate Change Programme, which proposes
increasing the use of renewable energy, to help meet agreed targets to reduce emissions
into the atmosphere which are causing climate change.
Local/Regional Policy
Linking to other local strategies.
Sheffield City Council’s Corporate Plan contains three key objectives that our Trees and
Woodlands can contribute to delivering:
• Sustain high quality parks and green spaces
• Help thousands of people achieve a greater level of wellbeing
• Attract individuals and businesses to Sheffield as the UK’s
top Outdoor City
SCC Green and Open Spaces Strategy (GOSS)
The Trees and Woodlands Strategy is a sub-strategy of the GOSS. The structure of the
strategy is derived from the GOSS and the overall vision for greenspaces in Sheffield is at the
heart of the Trees and Woodlands Strategy which is;-
‘Sheffield is the greenest city in Britain, proud of its rich variety of open spaces. Our Strategy
will ensure that every area of the city has green and open spaces of exceptional quality for
all current and future generations to use and enjoy’.
SCC Corporate Tree Risk Management Strategy
The Sheffield City Council Corporate Tree Risk management Strategy was adopted in 2010 to
provide a system of risk assessing trees on council land where a duty of care exists. The
strategy contains details of the process of quantifying risk on council sites, the inspection
process, carrying out remedial work and record keeping. The system is subject to ongoing
review to keep it in line with current industry practice.
50

SCC Streets Ahead 5 year Highway Tree Strategy, etc
Streets Ahead is a 25 year partnership that seeks to upgrade Sheffield’s roads, pavements,
lighting and other highway assets during the first five years and then maintain the assets
thereafter for the remainder of the contract term. This Tree Management Strategy sets out
Streets Ahead’s approach to delivering the Tree Management Service in regard to highway
trees. The Tree Management Strategy is used to effectively undertake the Streets Ahead
team’s responsibilities under the Contract and deliver the Tree Management Service on the
Project Network.
Outdoor City Strategy
In 2014, Sheffield Hallam University’s Sport Industry Research Centre produced a report
titled ‘Everything grows outside – including jobs and the economy’, which looked at the
impact of outdoor recreation in Sheffield. The report found that:
• Participation rates in outdoor recreation in Sheffield are higher than the national
average across a range of activities, particularly for running, walking and cycling.
• The city is home to a number of global brands and businesses that directly support
and promote the outdoor industry such as Go Outdoors and Buffalo Systems.
• Sheffield is the UK’s ‘climbing capital’, with more than an estimated 10,000 Sheffieldbased
climbers and climbing provision that is more significant than other
comparable cities.
• There is a strong heritage and high participation in walking and running, with one of
the world’s oldest fell races, and a thriving park-run and walking scene.
• Sheffield has a very proud history of leadership in the outdoors, as one of the bases
for the Kinder Mass Trespass, which led directly to the national ‘Right to Roam’.
• An online survey carried out as part of the research found that the best thing about
living in Sheffield is that it is the “best of both worlds” – a combination of urban
living and access to the outdoors.
We are actively involved with the development of the Outdoor City agenda which has
identified a number of recreation hubs which we are looking to develop including,
Parkwood Springs, Ecclesall Woods, Ewden Valley, Wheeta Woods and Redmires.
51

Appendix 3
Sheffield Standard Assessment Scoring Template
Sheffield City Council – Parks and Countryside
Name of green space
Grid Reference
Judge
Date of field assessment
Exceptions
Assessment Scores Table
Criteria Category Score (0 – 10)
1 Welcoming
A
Welcoming
Place
Healthy,
Safe and
Secure
Clean and
Well
Maintained
2 Good and safe access
3 Signage
4 Equal access for all
5 Community involvement
6 Safe equipment & facilities
7 Personal security in park
8 Dog Fouling
9 Appropriate provision of facilities
10 Quality of facilities
11 Litter & waste management
12 Grounds maintenance, horticulture, habitat
management
13 Building, infrastructure &/or equipment maintenance
Sub total
Score divided by 13 (or number of categories used in assessment)
Sheffield Standard total score – multiply by 7
Does this site pass the Sheffield Standard (pass mark 42)
Recommendations for Raising to Sheffield standard
52

Overall assessment
Suggestions for improvement
Sheffield Standard – Evidence and Comments
A Welcoming Place
Strengths
•
Recommendations •
53

Appendix 4
Framework for Participation- Park and Countryside Service
Inform Consult Involve
Information giving Information gathering Consultation Deliberation Collaboration Partnership
Purpose: To provide
people with information
about our plans and
services to assist their
understanding
Purpose: To collect
information about
attitudes, opinions and
preferences that will
assist our
understanding and
decision making
Purpose: We ask
people for their views
on specific policies or
proposals
Purpose: To discuss
what the issues and
priorities are. To
actively involve people
and facilitate
participation
Purpose: Working
together to improve and
design new services
Purpose: To maintain
an equal and effective
working relationship
Expectation: That
information will be
accurate, balanced and
updated as necessary
Expectation: That
information gathered
will be treated and used
responsibly, reported
honestly, and may be
subject to SCC scrutiny
Expectation: That
feedback will be taken
seriously, decisions will
be influenced and
people will be informed
of the influence they
have had
Expectation: That
people will be able to
shape the process, that
it will be transparent
throughout and that
they will have some
influence over
decisions
Expectation: That
decision-making will be
shared and some
resources will be held
in common
Expectation: That local
people will be involved
in the decision making
process and clear
levels of accountability
are demonstrated

Options: Local
Councillors informed,
Friends or appropriate
group informed, on-site
notice, Group
newsletter/circular, P&C
website, poster, social
media. Feedback on
social media
Options: Surveys,
questionnaires, focus
groups
Options: Consultation
papers, public
meetings, service user
panels
Options: Deliberative
workshops, stakeholder
dialogue processes,
public meetings,
service user panels
Options: Stakeholder
groups, user forums
Options: Local
partnership
arrangements,
delegated decision
making, site
management plans,
service level
agreements
Examples:
Examples:
Examples:
Examples:
Examples:
Examples:
• Formation of new
Friends group
• Removal of
specimen trees
• Filming on location
• Annual Friends’
Group Survey
• Ecological surveys
• On-site P&C visitor
survey
• Installation of a
playground
• Allotment rent
review
• Tree and
Woodland Strategy
• Bowls Advisory
Group
• Sheffield Green
and Open Spaces
Strategy
• Sheffield Green
Spaces Forum
• Friends’ Group
funding bids in
partnership with
P & C
• Sheffield &
Rotherham Wildlife
Trust Management
Reports
• Disposals
• Allotment Advisory
Group
• P&C external
capital funding
55

Appendix 5
The Right Tree in the Right Place Checklist
Greater London Authority, March 2005 24
Appropriate locations
• What is the existing value of the space, and would the impact of trees be positive?
• Existing habitat and landscape value: establish the habitat and landscape type of the site -
shade cast by trees, and their demands on soil, water and nutrients, mean that they can kill
or damage valuable wildlife habitats such as wetlands, heathlands, flower rich grasslands
and brownfields so check for existing value before committing to planting.
• Tree cover history: check historical records to see if the site is in an area where there have
been trees in the past, to establish whether the creation of new woodland or tree cover
would be appropriate.
Appropriate species and design
• Development design: trees should not be located where they will experience inappropriate
growing conditions e.g. in the shadow of tall buildings.
• Local character: check if there is a history in the area for the use of particular species that
could be a reflected in the planned planting.
• Work with nature: in natural areas, employ stock of locally native origin. Best of all, work
with natural colonisation.
• Great trees of the future: where the setting allows, take opportunities to plant large species
of trees with a long lifespan.
• Accessibility: new trees and woodlands are most needed where they can provide people
with access to nature and natural landscape in areas presently lacking in such access.
• Infrastructure: consider existing and future infrastructure requirements – do not plant too
close to over/underground infrastructure. Replace removed trees in the same pit if
appropriate.
• Highways: meet the statutory safety requirements to maintain a clear route along roads
(consider heights of buses, HGVs, cars, cycles and horses).
• Space: check available space against the final height and spread of the proposed species
with a view to minimising frequency and amount of pruning required.
• Soil condition: the soil in hard landscaped areas is often poor. Soil compaction needs to be
limited in the tree pit and adequate nutrients supplied. Use species known to be robust to
these limitations.
24 http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/ltwf_full.pdf/$FILE/ltwf_full.pdf

Appendix 6
Tree and Woodland Resources
Data from previous surveys (desk based and sample plots), give us a basic understanding of
the tree and woodland resource in the city. Citywide canopy values should be viewed as
estimates and are predominantly based on data from 2005 – 2008. Age and species
structure information is based on the Broomhill, Central and Nether Edge (BCNE) Survey
(2008). More recent data (2015) has been gathered from sample plots across the city which
show number of trees, land type and management responsibility.
Trees stock
The total canopy cover for the whole of the Sheffield is approximately 4000 hectares (2005).
Types of Woodland and
Council departments
Approximate
Number of
Trees (2015)
Urban Ancient 498,600
Urban New plantation
180,000
PAWS 143,000
Peak Thinned plantation
498,800
Un thinned 392,500
Housing 100,000
Social Services 3000
Education (non schools) 4000
Schools 10,000
Libraries 200
Bereavement Services 3000
Planning 2000
Parks 100,000
Streets Ahead 36,000
Property Services 150,000
Age and Species profile
Tree longevity, size and species composition were surveyed for three wards (Broomhill, Central and
Nether Edge) in 2008.
57

Tree longevity All trees surveyed Tree size All trees surveyed
Long (over 40 years) 30 % Large 21 %
Medium (10 – 40 years) 54 % Medium 36 %
Short (less than 10 years) 16 % Small 43 %
percentage of trees surveyed
30
25
20
15
10
5
Most common species found in
the BCNE survey (2008)
0
58

Appendix 7
Extract of Timber Harvesting Programme 2012 - 2031
2017 Name of Wood Sub Cpt Number Area ha. Harvesting Forest Year Harvesting FY Period Planting Year Age Species m3
Thinning Raynor Clough 11b 1.743 2017 01/10/16 to 30/09/17 1967 50 JL/SP 69.7
Thinning Raynor Clough 11c 2.113 2017 01/10/16 to 30/09/17 1967 50 NS/SP 84.5
Thinning Raynor Clough 11d 0.727 2017 01/10/16 to 30/09/17 1977 40 NS 29.1
Thinning Dwarriden 14f 0.688 2017 01/10/16 to 30/09/17 1956 61 SY/AH 27.5
Thinning White Lee Moor 17a 4.551 2017 01/10/16 to 30/09/17 1961 56 JL 182.1
Thinning White Lee Moor 17b 8.158 2017 01/10/16 to 30/09/17 1961 56 SS 326.3
Thinning White Lee Moor 17c 0.52 2017 01/10/16 to 30/09/17 1961 56 SP 20.8
Thinning White Lee Moor 17d 5.124 2017 01/10/16 to 30/09/17 1961 56 SS 205.0
Thinning 23.624 945.0
Felling Broomhead Park 7a 3.267 2017 01/10/16 to 30/09/17 1953 64 CP/JL/NS/SS 980.1
Felling Yew Trees Lane 8a 4.145 2017 01/10/16 to 30/09/17 1953 64 CP/JL/NS/SS 1243.5

Felling
Windy Bank
Wood
21a 2.021 2017 01/10/16 to 30/09/17 1939 78 JL/BE 606.3
Felling Doe House Wood 26a 3.667 2017 01/10/16 to 30/09/17 1947 70 NS/SS 1100.1
Felling 13.1 3930
TOTAL 2017 4875.0
60

Humans in a green city: who notices, who
connects, who feels a health benefit?
Dr Clare Rishbeth, Dr Jo Birch
Department of Landscape, University of Sheffield
@clarerishbeth @_JoBirch
www.iwun.uk
Brendan Stone, Sarah Payne.

IWUN – Improving wellbeing through urban nature
Mapping health
inequalities & access to
green space
Cultures and values of
nature, health &
wellbeing
App exploring aspects
of urban environments
delivering H&W
benefits
Impact – guidelines for
how natural envt.
Characteristics
delivered in practice.

Work package 2:
cultures and values
Foregrounding the human experience
Windows into complexity
… of people (age, socio-economic, life experiences, gender, day to day
responsibilities, personalities)
… of places (ecological value, bio-diversity, recreational use, spatial
qualities, levels of management, rural-urban, incidental or designed)

Why is this integral to the work of IWUN –
Improving Wellbeing through Urban Nature?
• ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE CHANGE: Because
improving wellbeing through contact with
nature needs to be informed by
understandings of actual day-to-day
experiences of nature (positive, negative and
unaware), what motivates and what is is
unappealing, and what people already do for
their own wellbeing.
• EMBEDDING PRIORITIES IN SOCIAL EQUITY:
Recognising and where possible addressing
differences in terms of health outcomes, and
differences in accessing a high quality
greenspace resource.

Natural surroundings
Social context
Meaningful activity
Green Care
Bragg and Atkins, 2016

‘Green Care’ is socially and
culturally constructed
Natural surroundings
Social context
Meaningful activity
Green Care
Bragg and Atkins, 2016, p46

MENE: (140,000 interviews over a 3 year period).

Aging and
increasingly culturally
diverse population.
Tendency of
greenspace
preference research
to concentrate on
‘users’.
Quality of
environment (and
greenspace) differs
across urban areas.
MENE: (140,000 interviews over a 3 year period).
Buijis et al (2009)
images of nature and
immigrant status
most likely predictors
of differences in
landscape
preference.

Who we are and what we will talk about
SCOPE: our research questions
METHODS: what and why
FOCUSING IN: Exploring two key words through two key groups:
- Nature memories and first generation migrants
- Nature values held by young adults
BIG PICTURE: Overview of conceptions of nature as a wellbeing and
mental health resource
TWO INTREGUING HEADLINE FINDINGS
SO WHAT: looking forward to implications for practice.

Research Questions

Are natural
environments
perceived
and used as a
H&W resource?

What cultural
resources, personal
narratives and
‘epiphany
moments’ shape
individual
motivations for
contact with
nature?

What can we learn
about nature
connectedness
through the life
course, specifically
where this is
characterised by
migration, different
mental health
trajectories, and
intergenerational
responsibilities?

What are the temporal,
spatial and sensory
dynamics that shape
restorative experiences
of urban nature?

How do values of
nature motivate more
intentional contact
with nature, and in
what ways is this
negotiated and
enacted in relation to
others (family, peers,
health professionals)?

Methods

Data collection
60 interviews (38 done) Summer 2017 -Spring 2018
4-6 follow-up focus groups Spring- Summer 2018
Mental Health Focus: 4 separate groups participating in 6 arts-based co-produced
workshops
Adults with MH difficulties (story/narrative arts) Autumn 2017
Young people with MH difficulties (zine making) Spring 2018
Adults with MH diffs supported in community (mixed arts/drama) Spring 2018
Women with post natal depression (photography) Spring 2018

60 interviews BAME and/or in Deprived Areas Not BAME, not Deprived Areas
Age 16-25
12-15
5-7
Age 40-50
12-15
5-7
Age 70 +
12-15
5-7

The interview
• Semi structured 22 questions 40 mins – 1.5 hours with 60 people
• Three sections
• Life in Sheffield: feel good places, place attachment, nature as H&W
resource
• Outdoors: incidental nature noticing, special (visits), lifecourse, barriers
and cultural influences, who with.
• Nature: nature meanings, Sheffield nature, personal connection (drawing),
noticing nature from indoors, temporal variations, personal health,
‘perfect’ experience/place in Sheffield

Mostly ‘non-green’ groups and
communities
e.g.
Sheffield Futures
Disability Sheffield
Lunch clubs
Conversation Clubs
Church Groups
Wellbeing Groups
Parents’ communities
Community Centres
City centre events
Advisory Group.

37 participants (21 BAME) – British Pakistani, Indian, British
African Caribbean, British Somali, Sudanese, Eritrean, Iranian,
Algerian, Indonesian, Chinese, White British.
18 with IILLNESS/DISABILITY (12 BAME) Asthma, Anxiety,
Angina, Arthritis, 1 person is a carer of a person w LD,
Diabetes, ‘Disability Allowance (walking stick), Depression,
Eczema, Hay Fever, Joint Pain, Mineral and Vitamin
Deficiencies, Mental Health Condition.

Nature & wellbeing arts workshop 1
11 adults with lived experience of mental health
difficulties
• Aged 30- 60 yrs
• 6 men, 5 women
• 2 physical illness/disability

Focusing in:
Nature memories of first generation migrants

Nature noticing by first generation migrants – childhood to adult narratives.
Sudan
Indonesia
China
Jamaica
Iran
Pakistan
Algeria
Finding honey in a tree in a cemetery, soft rain on face.
Urban playing ‘hide and seek, baseball, football’ in ‘neighbourhood land’
A place very deep in the forest. There were woods, grassland, animals. This is
the reason I like nature. We had a big garden and we grew vegetables.
Lived on a farm, was happy but didn’t like farming
Go near rivers, in nature, the countryside, go in other cities and my city.
With my family. In the river, we would put our toe in the water!
Mulberry tree. Was a very poor life, no electricity, no toilet. Going to fields,
cut grass, firewood, wild fruit. They were so lovely and tasty. Especially in
spring, smell leaves and flowers, gorgeous, “it’s like heaven”. Presence of
farm animals.
Wooded lanes, running water, farms.

Nature noticing by first generation migrants – childhood to adult narratives.
Sudan
Indonesia
China
Jamaica
Iran
Pakistan
Algeria
Finding honey in Flowers a tree in and a cemetery, sun make soft him rain happy, on face. sits in local park. Water in Peace Gardens
Childhood play ‘hide Spends and time seek, with baseball, her children football’ in many in ‘neighbourhood Sheffield parks. land’
A place very deep Walks in the in forest. local woods, There sometimes were woods, alone, grassland, sometimes animals. with This her is son, wild garlic,
the reason I like importance nature. We had of fresh a big air, garden values and green we grew city. vegetables.
Lived on a farm, Extremely was happy limited but didn’t experience like farming of visiting parks. Likes seeing flowers.
Go near rivers, in Often nature, goes the for countryside, walks in local go parks, in other skyline cities views and my important, city. comparison of
With my family. different In the river, types we of would rain, put likes our festivals toe in and the music water! in parks.
Mulberry tree. Was Spends a very time poor in local life, no parks electricity, chatting no with toilet. his friends. Going to In fields, his small garden he
cut grass, firewood, has ‘squeezed wild fruit. They in’ lots were of fruit so lovely trees, and including tasty. Especially a walnut and in a mulberry,
spring, smell leaves enjoys and being flowers, in his gorgeous, garden and it’s like picking heaven”. cherries. Presence Enjoyed of going to Chatsworth
farm animals. (once), looking after small animals in his home was important.
Wooded lanes, running Finds some water, scenes farms. around Sheffield very evocative of home, shares these
memories with her children. Also visits Whirlow Farm so her children can
experience something of how she grew up.

Jo: When I say ‘nature’, what does nature mean for
you? Because everyone has different ideas.
“Seeing cows and a horse on the way to
Manchester”.
“Like the zoo, where you go and see animals and
things like that, I love to, I would, I love to go to the
zoo. Sheffield nature: Heeley City Farm, and after
prompting further: if you're driving out, say go to
outskirts of Sheffield you might see, you know, you
see animals like sheep and cow, cows in the field”.
“Like a forest, wild animals, wildlife, trees”.
“I was in, look after, you know, having a lot of pets in
one time… I had a, dozens of pigeons. Like a pet,
yeah, and I had two, three rabbits. And a few hens
and one cockerel. And budgies, oh I had almost
everything, parrot…” (also talks about the
importance of farm animals in the rural environment
in his home country).
“Nobody must destroy that! Nature. Natural. [He
looks up some words on his phone to translate and
he settles on one word he likes:] Pristine”.
“Nature is outside the world…it is not society”.
“Is environment, is like environment, to look after
each other, like we start from the neighbourhood,
we, yeah, we look after our garden, we look after the
street”.
Non-ecological conceptions of nature - The
surprising significance of (farm) animals

Seasonality (and weather)
“If it's sunny then we'll make an effort and go and do something but if it's rain or cold, we
don't want to go, we don't do cold. I would never do a cold holiday, when they talk about
skiing I'm thinking that would be my worst nightmare… I don't know if it's the Caribbean
thing because they, [laughs] you know, because my mum never used to like it when it was
raining either so maybe it's things that she instilled in us”.
(born in UK, parents from Jamaica)
“When it snows, I just feel safe inside the house. So, but from inside I love watching that,
to look outside, aww this is white everywhere, all white”. (As long as you don't have to go
out in it!). “Yes!”
(from Indonesia, lived in UK 20 years)
“I like it especially when the clouds come down and it is cloudy – like today. This rain is so
small. I haven’t seen it before. It doesn’t make you wet. I like it. It comes on your skin and
feels good…
When it is cloudy and foggy, it becomes stronger [his connection to nature]. I don’t know
why. It’s like all parts come together, the cloud, the trees…”
(from Iran, lived in UK for half a year)

Seasonality (and weather)
“I like spring, I like when the, like the trees coming back, so it's like going to sleep and you
see them, they are sad, they're going to sleep, yeah, but you, you know they're coming
back, so you are like to have inspiration, yeah, to look forward, yeah, God make me live
until spring to see them have more leaf now”.
(from Algeria)
In spring, time you will see the plants, they, they're growing up and the flowers will start
to, especially those daffodils, sometime, the roadside, you see, you would see they come
up, because in the wintertime everything just dead and so but in the spring and the
flowers start to, spring up it give you a good feeling.
(from Jamaica)
I see the woods outside the window. It is beautiful and green. Every spring, it gradually,
gradually become more green. I say ‘Ah, it’s time you came!’
(from northern China)

Focusing in:
Nature values of young people

Getting out of a
built environment
(Ben)
Not
cultivated….not
made by
someone to look
pretty…definitely
the countryside
(Jacob)
There’s no nature
in the city centre
is there? I don’t
see any grass or
owt. (Ashley)
Not loads of cars
going past all the
time (Hannah)
Everything that
man has not
touched, messed
about with (Euan)
I wouldn’t
associate nature
with a park
(Danny)

There was some sort
of story like the
council wanting to cut
down a ton of trees
and it’s just a
reminder […] how
much like nature’s
been slowly and
slowly taken away
from Sheffield (Euan)
[Nature means:]
nobody must
destroy that
(Idin)

Time with family in parks,
woods, country parks
Remembering absent
family, in other
countries
Away from
phones/devices/
technologies
For freedom, when
feeling trapped
For beauty, for calm
Relief from (study)
stress, alone/in
company
For comfort &
familiarity
For play, (rope swing,
games, sport) exercise,
fresh air

so when I went through the mardy teenager
[phase], I don't want to go out sort of thing […]
I didn't want to go, whereas as […] kids we
were brought up and we went on walks and
things like that and then I got to about fourteen
or whatever and didn't want to do any of that
and then more now it's turning out that
actually, yeah, this is really pretty, like I want to
go and want to suggest going on a walk sort of
thing.

Big picture:
Nature as a wellbeing and mental health resource

Reproduced from ‘Staring at the
Park’ with kind permission from
Jane Speedy

Daleel
Larry
Farooq
Sri
Martin
Robert Irene
Binita
Iqbal
Mrs Miller
Rumaisa
Kay
Hadil
Ivy
Idin
Mr Miller
Carol
Ben
Doug
Danny
Euan
Petros
Jacob
Andrew
Rojwan
Gerald
Mai
Grace
Hannah
Very
limited
noticing or
connecting
with nature
Some nature
noticing &
connection
Deriving
benefits from
nature as a
H&W resource
Bassam
Ashley
Jean
Margaret
Khal
Mrs Lawrence
Actively seek
to connect
with nature
as H&W
resource

IDIN – IRANIAN ASYLUM SEEKER IN UK male mid twenties
(Depression, Joint pain, Iron and Vit D deficiencies) UK 3 months
I like Sheffield because of the hills.
I used to go mountain climbing
and hill walking near my city. It
was really the countryside and
you could see the countryside and
the trees from the hills. Sheffield
is nice. I go for walks.

Nature makes me feel better….when I feel sad. It makes me feel better [I have known this] 20 years! I have
had depression for about 4 years

I love to be here
Keep calm. Let’s have a
rest. Look at me and feel
better

MRS LAWRENCE – AFRICAN CARIBBEAN Female early seventies
(depression, back problems, husband has Alzheimers) Sheffield since
1961
It was social
working in the
hospital really.

I go down to the social club down, down Lark
Street and help down there Wednesday,
Thursday … it's sociable, you know, and
sometimes […]Foster Street, got a community
centre down there, Tuesday and Thursday can
go, you can go and have a dinner and […] they
used to have social, erm, craftwork but I think
that is on a Monday now, so…

The flowers are
beautiful and
everything is in,
everything is in
proper order really
and you can get a
nice lunch up there
as well

I miss the supermarket that was across
there. It’s closed down now. And it was
Co-Op after, Co-Op was there last and
[…] Because, I'm there, down the Peace
Garden there you know, but this
[supermarket] is missing really.

Two Intriguing Headline
Findings:

Not ‘epiphanies’ but repeated small joys
Everyday-ness rather than wow factors
The specific qualities of a ‘visit’ not as important as nature generally being around you

Social worlds and nature connections are entangled
Social worlds frame our connections with a natural world (layers of past social worlds)
past as well as present – usefulness of long stories.
Natural environments have potential as a H&W resource, but this needs to be
integrated with an understanding of them as a social resource (and the social
connections within the life of an individual).
This includes their resource as a necessary space/time of retreat.

So what?

Daleel
Larry
Farooq
Sri
Martin
Robert Irene
Binita
Iqbal
Mrs Miller
Rumaisa
Kay
Hadil
Ivy
Idin
Mr Miller
Carol
Ben
Doug
Danny
Euan
Petros
Jacob
Andrew
Rojwan
Gerald
Mai
Grace
Hannah
Very
limited
noticing or
connecting
with nature
Some nature
noticing &
connection
Deriving
benefits from
nature as a
H&W resource
Bassam
Ashley
Jean
Margaret
Khal
Mrs Lawrence
Actively seek
to connect
with nature
as H&W
resource

Very
limited
noticing or
connecting
with nature
Increase personal
agency &
information (30
Days Wild)
Some nature
noticing &
connection
Deriving
benefits from
nature as a
H&W resource
• context of living in deprived areas
• personal agency
Actively seek
to connect
with nature
as H&W
resource

Appendix 17
Working with Volunteers
Thoughts on Best Practice
The challenge for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership is to extend the number and diversity of
volunteer groups working on projects during the delivery phase.
We have undertaken some desk research to identify best practice and resources to develop and
work with volunteers.
Having spoken to those running projects it is clear that they are familiar with working with
volunteers, but even so we recommend that they review the good practice on offer fo anything extra
that they can include to support increasing the diversity within the group.
The Sheffield Volunteer Centre
The Sheffield Volunteer Centre has web based information on good practice that project leaders
should be encouraged to review.
http://www.sheffieldvolunteercentre.org.uk/good-practice-resources
In particular, there is a section on involving refugees & asylum seeker volunteers
http://www.sheffieldvolunteercentre.org.uk/involving-refugees-asylum-seeker-volunteers
Summary of information:
Refugees and asylum seekers can
Bring unique skills and experience – some are highly skilled professionals.
Help you to engage with the refugee communities.
Increase the diversity of your organisation.
Enhance your awareness of other cultures.
Is it more work?
There is huge diversity amongst refugees and asylum seekers. Some speak fluent English and can be
trained up quickly to do the role you need them for, whereas others may not have worked in their
home country, will only have basic English and may take longer to train and need more support.
Staff on the New Beginnings project at the Volunteer can give advice on involving refugees and help
identify people who will be suitable for your role.
Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Excerpts from Community Impact Bucks, Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers (see attached
pdf)
PREPARED FOR SHEFFIELD LAKELAND BY WAYMARK INTERPRETATION, P1

Appendix 17
The 27 Best Practices of High Performing Volunteer Organizations
Mitch Ditkoff in Huffington Post – full article at https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitch-ditkoff/bestpractices-volunteer-organizations_b_2624967.html
Executive summary
….many volunteer organizations, in various unconscious ways, sabotage the value their volunteers
bring to the table. Whether it’s bad management, poor communication, or the inability to
acknowledge people for their efforts… The result? Volunteers back off, quit, or grumble about the
organization.
…informal research on the subject - identified 27 best practices that high performing volunteer
organizations abide by.
1. Clearly (and often) communicate the vision.
2. Provide clearly written job descriptions.
3. Take the time to authentically welcome volunteers and orient them to their new role.
4. Ensure that volunteers know exactly what’s expected of them.
5. Start new volunteers off small. Don’t scare them off with too huge of a commitment too
soon.
6. Keep the workloads manageable.
7. Communicate progress being made on a regular basis. Volunteers need to see that their
efforts are having impact.
PREPARED FOR SHEFFIELD LAKELAND BY WAYMARK INTERPRETATION, P2

Appendix 17
8. When there are setbacks or breakdowns, learn from them — and share your learnings with
others.
9. Be prepared so you don’t waste people’s time.
10. Create a trusting environment that ensures open communication, teamwork, and respect for
diversity.
11. Keep everyone on your team informed of the inevitable changes (i.e. direction, policy,
timelines, goals, personnel etc.)
12. Provide opportunities for volunteers to switch to different roles they might find more
enjoyable.
13. Give and receive feedback (both formally and informally).
14. Provide opportunities for volunteers to learn and grow.
15. Honor your commitments (and if, for any reason, you cannot — renegotiate them with
volunteers).
16. Give volunteers the opportunity to take breaks from the project.
17. Make sure volunteers know they can say “no” if they are overextended or overwhelmed.
18. Enthusiastically acknowledge successes, especially “small wins”).
19. Be kind and respectful in all your interactions.
20. Do your best to make sure everyone is enjoying the process of participating.
21. Respond to input, questions, and feedback as soon as possible. Don’t leave people hanging.
22. Build some interpersonal chat time into your meetings and conference calls.
23. Teach volunteers, in leadership positions, how to delegate.
24. Even when you are stressed or behind deadline, take the time to make sure your emails
have a feeling of warmth to them
25. Fill out Project Briefs on all projects you are inviting volunteer participation — and share
them with volunteers.
26. Conduct exit interviews whenever a volunteer ends their participation or is asked to step
aside.
27. Share your learnings from the exit interviews with other managers.
28. Follow the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
PREPARED FOR SHEFFIELD LAKELAND BY WAYMARK INTERPRETATION, P3

Voluntary Sector Support
Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
www.communityimpactbucks.org.uk Community Impact Bucks is a registered charity no:1070267 company no: 3508718

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Contents
Introduction 3
What Do Volunteer Centres Do? 4
What Is Volunteering? 6
Why Involve Volunteers? 7
Why Do People Volunteer? 9
What Do You Want Volunteers to Do? 11
Getting Volunteers On Board 14
Selection and Screening 16
Induction and Training 21
Volunteer Expenses 29
Recognition of your Volunteers 30
Keeping Volunteers Motivated 31
Dealing with Problems 32
Saying Goodbye 35
Further support 36
Page 2

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Introduction
These guidelines are intended to assist
organisations with the effective
management of volunteers. Good
practice does not require any specialist
knowledge. It mostly involves common
sense and the imaginative ability to put
yourself in the position of a volunteer.
How would you like to be treated? Are
you made to feel welcome and useful?
The recruitment and management of
volunteers is not dissimilar to the
recruitment and management of staff, but
unlike paid staff, volunteers have no
reason to stay if they do not enjoy their
work, so it is important that they are
managed well. One bad experience can
put people off volunteering, sometimes
permanently.
Therefore, the aim of this Good Practice
Guide is to give you some simple
guidelines, and practical suggestions
which will help you to attract, involve and
support volunteers effectively, and have
an exit strategy when they move on.
If we can be of further assistance you can
contact us:-
Community Impact Bucks
• Helpline: 0845 389 0389
• Email:
volunteering@communityimpactbucks.org.uk
• Website:
www.communityimpactbucks.org.uk
Very few organisations can afford to
employ a dedicated volunteer manager.
In most organisations, particularly small
ones, the person responsible for
volunteers combines this with many
other roles. Some people who take on
this role are themselves volunteers.
Page 3

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
What do Volunteer Centre’s do?
Community Impact Bucks runs
the Volunteer Centre for
Buckinghamshire and provides
support at a local level for
individual volunteers and
volunteer involving
organisations.
To help your organisation we
offer:
1. Brokerage
To match both individuals and groups
interested in volunteering with
appropriate opportunities in the local
community. They hold information on a
comprehensive range of opportunities,
and offer potential volunteers support and
advice matching their motivation to
volunteer with appropriate volunteering
opportunities.
Community Impact Bucks have a
volunteering brokerage coordinator who
can help you (see page 5 for contact
details).
2. Marketing Volunteering
To stimulate and encourage local interest
in volunteering and community activity.
This may include promoting and
marketing volunteering through local,
regional and national events and
campaigns. We do this through the do-it
website (www.do-it.org.uk) and regular
columns in the local press.
3. Good Practice
Development
To promote good practice in working
with volunteers to all volunteer-involving
organisations, including training for
potential volunteers, existing volunteers,
volunteer managers and the volunteering
infrastructure.
4. Develop Volunteering
Opportunities
To work in close partnership with
statutory, voluntary and private sector
agencies as well as community groups
and faith groups to develop local
volunteering opportunities. Target specific
groups which face barriers to
volunteering. Volunteer Centres work
creatively to develop imaginative, formal
and non-formal opportunities for
potential volunteers.
Page 4

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
5. Policy Response and Campaigning
To identify proposals or legislation that may impact on volunteering; to lead and/or
participate in campaigns on issues that affect volunteers or volunteering; and to
campaign proactively for a more volunteer-literate and volunteer-friendly climate.
6. Strategic Development of Volunteering
We also offer volunteer services and projects such as:
• Expert Volunteers
• Employee Volunteering – Volunteer Workout
• Supported Volunteering- Opportunities For all
Further information on any of the above can be found on our web site:
www.communityimpactbucks.org.uk or by
e mail: volunteering@communityimpactbucks.org.uk or telephone 0845 389 0389.
Page 5

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
What is volunteering?
Volunteering is defined in the
Compact Volunteering Code of
Good Practice as:
An activity that involves spending
time, unpaid, doing something
that aims to benefit the
environment or individuals or
groups other than (or in addition
to) close relatives.
There are four principles
fundamental to volunteering:
Choice, Diversity, Mutual
Benefit and Recognition
Choice:
Volunteering must be a choice freely
made by each individual. Freedom to
volunteer implies freedom not to become
involved.
Mutual Benefit:
Volunteers offer their contribution
unwaged but should benefit in other ways
in return for their contribution. Giving
voluntary time and skills must be
recognised as establishing a reciprocal
relationship in which the volunteer also
benefits and feels that his or her
contribution is personally fulfilling.
Recognition:
Explicit recognition of the value of the
contribution of volunteers is fundamental
to a fair relationship between volunteers,
voluntary and community organisations
and government policy and practice. This
includes recognising the contribution to
the organisation and the community.
Diversity:
Volunteering should be open to all, no
matter what their background, race,
nationality, religion, ethnic or national
origins, age gender, marital status, sexual
orientation or disability.
Page 6

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Why involve volunteers?
Although volunteers are not paid for their
time, they are not just a free gift.
Involving volunteers takes resources such
as the time to recruit, manage and
support them; space and equipment; and
the cost of reimbursing out-of-pocket
expenses. A better way to think of
volunteers is that they are an investment –
although you do need to invest time and
resources, it will yield rewards in the long
term.
Good reasons to involve
volunteers might include:
• To enable your organisation to offer
more support or services to your
users;
• To widen participation or involve more
diverse groups of people, or allow
channels for more local input.
Volunteers can bring with them a
different perspective to an organisation
- one that reflects the views of the
community or client group;
• For their energy and enthusiasm;
• They have a different relationship with
your users, knowing they are there
because they want to be not just
because it is their job;
• Volunteers can bring a variety of
skills, experience and enthusiasm that
may otherwise be unavailable to
them;
• Volunteers can add credibility to an
organisation – giving their time free of
charge suggests that they are supportive
of the aims and services provided by
your organisation.
Not-so-good reasons to
want volunteers might
include:
• Doing the things no-one else wants
to do.
• Volunteers are not a substitute for
paid staff positions.
Page 7

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
The answer to this
question should:
•Clarify your reason for wanting to
involve volunteers
• Determine the roles and responsibilities
that your organisation will create for
volunteers
• Enable you to explain to volunteers
how and why their involvement
contributes to the overall aims and
objectives of the organisation
• Enable your organisation to develop
a plan for evaluating how effective the
involvement of volunteers has been
Volunteering is most
likely to work well if:
• The organisation has clear reasons for
involving volunteers that are in line
with its aims and goals and
acknowledges and recognises what
they contribute
• Trustees/managers, staff, volunteers and
users are all clear about why volunteers
are there, and committed to supporting
them
• The roles of volunteers are clearly
defined so that paid staff do not feel
undermined or threatened and
volunteers are clear about their tasks
and responsibilities
• There is an organisational culture which
values the involvement of volunteers
and makes sure it has the resources to
support them properly.
Page 8

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Why do People volunteer
Volunteering is a two way
relationship. Volunteers give
their time for free. While
altruistic motives are often
involved, individuals often also
have personal and professional
expectations of the experience.
Why should someone
volunteer with your
organisation?
People who want to volunteer have a
wide range of opportunities to choose
from, and they will choose the one which
seems to offer the best ‘fit’ to their
personal combination of motivations. It is
best to be clear from the start about what
you can offer to volunteers – and what,
realistically, you cannot offer.
Focus on what is positive about
volunteering with your organisation. What
would make them choose you, rather than
another organisation? What is special or
distinctive about volunteering with your
organisation?
Think about:
What your organisation
does
Why does your organisation exist? What is
the organisation working to achieve or
change? Who or what does it want to
help, support or empower? This is a
strong motivation for people who need to
feel strongly about a cause – and can be
more powerful than the ‘job satisfaction’
of the actual task that a volunteer is being
asked to do. Think of all the volunteers
who stand in the street with a collecting
tin! You might also want to consider:
What is distinctive or unusual about how
your organisation works to achieve its
aims? What do you do that other, similar
organisations don’t?
The development
opportunities you offer
What is interesting, exciting or
challenging about the volunteer roles that
you offer? Do you provide useful training?
Some people are looking for something
that will challenge or stretch them, or the
opportunity to take responsibility. Do you
offer the opportunity for direct contact
with your users or clients? – This is
particularly useful experience for people
seeking to explore a new career, or who
need to get work related experience.
Page 9

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Being part of your
organisation
People volunteer for a wide range of
reasons
- Some people want to develop new
skills
- Some people want to meet new people
and be part of a team
- Some people want to utilise existing
skills
- Some people might be using
volunteering to help them get
somewhere else
Below are three quotes from volunteers
working in Community Impact Bucks who
all have different reasons for giving up
their time and volunteering
“I made a speculative approach to an organisation in my village. They
suggested that I could be involved in the community Oil Buying scheme.
The work uses my existing skills and experience, the people are nice and
there is lot’s to do.”
“I ‘m recently retired, I love coming into Community Impact Bucks once a
week to support the office admin team. It enables me to keep up to date
with modern technology and to use my office skills to the benefit of the
many services they offer. It is very enjoyable.”
“Working with Community Impact Bucks I have been able to offer my
services as a qualified accountant to voluntary groups who need help
with their business planning, I am able to fit this into my busy schedule
which is brilliant and very rewarding.”
Page 10

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
What do you want volunteers to do?
It is good practice to have clear
volunteer role descriptions which set
out what volunteers can expect to do
and what you will provide to enable
them to do this. Start by listing all the
tasks which volunteers could help with,
and then group these into defined
roles. This does not have to be
inflexible; you may sometimes prefer to
work in a way that responds to what
volunteers can offer and creates a role
for them. A role description is a useful
checklist of things to consider so that
you and the volunteer are both clear
about the role and expectations.
Role description
It is helpful to give the role a title which
sums up what the volunteer will be doing
– for example ‘befriender’, ‘mentor’,
‘office assistant’
Overall Purpose of the
role
Detail the purpose of the role and list all
the tasks and responsibilities that the
volunteer will be asked to undertake.
Location
Volunteering opportunities that are boring
or unsatisfactory may lead to recruitment
difficulties and a high turnover of
volunteers. It is worth being flexible and
creating volunteering opportunities that
are what people want; interesting,
challenging and rewarding, as they attract
volunteers who will be enthusiastic and
committed.
Where will the volunteer usually be
based? If this is in the community, state
what the geographical limits of your
service are and whether volunteers can
choose to be placed close to home.
Page 11

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Responsible to
This should give name and role of the
person who will manage and support
them.
Hours/time commitment
Give an indication of how much time this
role will take up and how frequently. If
you need volunteers to be available on
specific days and times, say so. If the
hours are flexible, what are the limits of
this flexibility? E.g. ‘volunteers are asked
to commit for a regular shift of 2 hours
per week during our normal opening
times of 10-4, Monday to Thursday’. If
you are asking for long term
commitment, be specific about this, and
state the minimum you would expect. (Be
aware, though, that you cannot legally
bind volunteers to this). Do not include
unnecessary restrictions, as you may put
off potential volunteers unnecessarily – if
it is negotiable then say so.
Skills required
Recruiting volunteers tends to be inclusive
rather than competitively selective –
so only include skills/experience which is
really necessary for the role. Consider
whether you would really turn someone
down who did not have the particular skill
but who was enthusiastic. Could you train
them in some or all of the necessary skills?
You could separate this out into skills
which a volunteer must have, and skills
which would be useful (but which are not
necessary).
If you are looking for personal qualities
in your volunteer try to write it in a way
that links directly to the role. For
example, for work which involves
telling lots of people about your
organisations work you might say ‘able
to deal confidently with talking to a
wide range of people ‘rather than
‘bubbly and outgoing’.
If there are other restrictions on what
kinds of volunteers you will accept, this is
the place to say so. For example if the
project is women - or men - only,
wants volunteers who have personal
experience of the issue they will be dealing
Page 12

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
with, or if there are age restrictions. You
need to explain these and to be sure that
they are essential to the role, not
discriminatory or based on stereotypes or
prejudices about certain kinds of people,
particularly if the anti-discrimination
legislation would prevent you from using
them if you were advertising a paid job.
For example ‘volunteers must be over 18
as they need to be mature enough to
work unsupervised’ – why 18? Would you
turn down a sensible, mature 17 years old
and accept an unreliable, irresponsible 50
year old?
Benefits to the volunteer
What specific benefits will this role offer?
Think about what might motivate people
to take on this role?
The role could be of value to students
looking to enter a specific profession or
times are flexible so you can fit this round
your commitments
Training
What training and induction will
volunteers be offered and how does it
relate to their role? Is this required (they
have to do it before they start
volunteering) or is it optional? When and
how often does training take place, and
how long does it take? Is it formal,
informal or ‘on the job’? Is ongoing
training available if volunteers want to
increase their knowledge or develop their
role? Can volunteers access external
training courses?
Support and supervision
What support and supervision is offered to
volunteers and how will it be provided? Is
it formal or informal? You might want to
include opportunities for peer support
such as volunteer social events or support
sessions.
Expenses
It It is good practice to make sure that
volunteers are not out of pocket .Include
here information about what expenses are
reimbursed to volunteers.
Page 13

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Getting volunteers on board
What happens when a potential
volunteer gets in touch for the
first time?
From the volunteer’s point of view, they
are offering you a gift – they are offering
to give you their time for nothing. So if
the organisation is slow to respond,
unenthusiastic, or unwelcoming, this can
seem most ungrateful!
Bear in mind the difference between
recruiting volunteers and recruiting paid
staff. For job recruitment, the process is
usually competitive for the applicants.
There is a deadline, and there are several
candidates and the role of the recruitment
and selection process is to choose the
most suitable and reject the others.
For volunteer recruitment, this is not
generally the case – usually the process
aims to include as many people wanting
to volunteer as possible, rather than to
exclude all but one successful candidate.
In fact the competition is often the other
way around. There are many other
organisations wanting volunteers and
many other organisations for volunteers
to go to. So they are selecting you! If the
process feels too formal or too like making
a job application this can be off-putting to
some people.
This means that:
• You need to respond quickly to any
expression of interest (or at the very
least to explain and apologise for any
delay).
• The initial contact needs to be friendly,
welcoming and enthusiastic. It need not
be the person who manages volunteers
if someone else (e.g. the administrator)
is more easily available – but whoever it
is needs to be well-informed,
approachable, able to answer questions
and tell the enquirer what will happen
next.
• You need to give volunteers all the
information they need to make an
informed decision about proceeding to
the next step. The aim should be to
encourage volunteers to make the next
step and commit themselves, if they
want to do so, and to say so without
embarrassment if it is not right for
them. It may be best, initially to do this
verbally (in person or over the
telephone) rather than sending lots of
written
Page 14

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
information, giving them the opportunity
to ask questions. You can then send
written information to clarify what you
have said.
The information you need from the
volunteer should be relevant to the task
and asked for in a way that is not too offputting.
For example, asking for details
when you meet the volunteer rather than
presenting them with a 10-page
‘application form’.
• Try not to make it feel too much like a
selection process (unless this really is the
case) – for example a ‘visit’ or ‘chat’
sounds less intimidating than an
‘interview’.
• If there is a screening procedure
(references or Criminal Record Bureau
checks) then take time to explain what
is involved, what information will be
needed and why you need to do them;
and also which offences would be likely
to be unacceptable to you as it is easy
for a volunteer to think that any offence
will bar them from volunteering. Let
them know how long this is likely to
take.
• Having made the offer of help,
volunteers need to know what happens
next and to have any delays explained
to them.
Page 15

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Selection & Screening
Selecting volunteers is about finding a
good match between the prospective
volunteer and the opportunity on offer.
It is an attempt to find a successful
blend where the person has the right
skills, experience and enthusiasm and
the opportunity satisfies the needs and
interests of the volunteer.
Every year thousands of people volunteer.
Almost without exception these
volunteers are keen to give up their time
and efforts for the benefit of others
without payment. Lack of care in
accepting volunteers can, unfortunately,
lead to dissatisfaction and disappointment
for both the individual and your
organisation when a person is placed in
an inappropriate opportunity, causing the
volunteer to stop working with you and
any other organisation.
In a very small number of cases, lack of
care in selection could lead to serious
danger for the service user. Good
selection procedures recognise that the
vast majority of volunteers deserve our
best efforts to find suitable
opportunities for them, whilst at the
same time setting up careful
acceptance procedures so that a very
small minority will not be placed in
positions where vulnerable people may
be at risk.
Record keeping
However informal or short-term the
volunteer opportunity, and even if you
don’t have a formal selection or screening
process, it is wise to ask for and keep a
record of:
• The volunteer’s name and address,
with some proof of identity
• Contact details
• Details of their next-of-kin or an
emergency contact
Information about any medical conditions
or allergies which their manager and/or
colleagues might need to know about
Application/Registration
form
You might want to ask a volunteer to
complete a basic application form,
although if this is too much like a formal
job application this can be off-putting,
and some volunteers may need help to
complete it. However it does give a
potential volunteer an opportunity to tell
you something about themselves and
their reasons for volunteering, and
provide you with a basic personnel
record.
Page 16

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Interviewing Volunteers
There are a number of reasons why
organisations find it beneficial to chat
in person to potential volunteers:
• It provides you with a chance to
explain more about the work of your
organisation and how volunteers fit
into its activities.
• It gives you the opportunity to assess
the suitability of the volunteer and
enables you to make sure they have
the skills and qualities that you need,
or to match their skills most effectively
to a suitable role.
• It also gives the volunteers a chance to
decide whether your organisation is
the right one for them, thus saving
everyone’s time.
• It helps to ensure that all volunteers
are given the same opportunity to find
out about the role and to demonstrate
their suitability.
• It enables you to be clear about
induction, probationary period and
anything else which volunteers need
to be clear about before they offer
time.
Plan your meeting carefully in advance.
You need to get the right balance
between professionalism and informality,
so that the experience gives the
volunteer confidence that the
organisation is efficient and wellorganised,
but is not so intimidating that
it scares them away! A badly conducted
interview will put volunteers off. You may
also want to address, before the
interview, any fears that a volunteer has;
and to explain whether it will be a formal
selection process or just an informal chat.
Planning an interview:
• Make sure that all staff knows that a
potential volunteer is coming and
ensure that someone is available to
welcome them.
• Have any background information to
hand as the volunteer may ask you
questions.
• Have a confidential area where you
will not be interrupted and can speak
in confidence
• Draw up a list of questions in advance
based on the volunteer role
description. Remember the interview is
your main selection tool.
• Use open questions. As an interviewer
you should be doing more listening
than talking (except when giving
information). i.e. can you tell me why
you are interested in this role? Can
you tell me about any experiences you
have had related to this one?
Page 17

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
• If you are interviewing several
volunteers, you may need to take
notes. It is less intimidating if you
explain to the volunteer why you are
making notes, just in case they think
they have said something wrong.
• If you are not going to make a
decision during the interview, then tell
the volunteer when you will let them
know and whether they can get
feedback on their interview.
Remember the aim of the interview is
to match the right person with the role.
It is useful to try and find out what
motivates each volunteer and then
match this to a suitable opportunity. A
good interviewer will give the
volunteer an opportunity to ‘selfselect’,
i.e. to reject the role if they feel
it is not right for them.
References
No organisation should be satisfied
with only the information provided by
the prospective volunteer. Some form
of independent verification is essential
good practice, although not legally
required.
Some organisations ask for all references
in writing; others prefer telephone
references. It is sensible, both for practical
and equal opportunities reasons, to make
a checklist of questions to ask and to keep
a written record of points raised in
telephone references, especially if the
reference is unsatisfactory.
The questions asked, whether verbally
or in writing, should verify how long
the person has known the volunteer,
and for how long, and should ask
specific questions which relate to the
role description and required skills for
the role the volunteer will be
performing. You might also want to ask
whether the referee would have any
concerns or doubts about offering the
person this role. When asked specific
questions, it is much harder for a
referee to conceal any doubts or
concerns than it would be in a bland,
general ‘character reference’.
It is not sensible to accept, without further
investigation, written references produced
by a prospective volunteer, since the
provision of such references is frequently
a term of settlement for a contested
dismissal from paid employment. Such
references are also open to forgery.
You will need some guidelines on who
you will accept as a referee, and how
long they must have known the person.
You can always send the role
description to the referee so they have
an idea what that person will be
doing.Remember that some volunteers,
especially if they have been ill or out
of paid work for a while, or if they have
Page 18

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
recently come to the UK, may find it
difficult to suggest a referee,
particularly if they assume you expect
an employment reference. You might
have to suggest alternatives such as a
teacher, tutor, social worker, health
professional, volunteer manager or
neighbour; or be prepared to arrange
for translation of a reference from
overseas.
It is worth remembering that a high
proportion of people have a criminal
conviction of some kind. Few of them will
have any ulterior motives for wanting to
volunteer, and there is no evidence to
suggest that a volunteer with a criminal
record is any more likely to offend than a
volunteer who has not. Outright rejection
of ALL ex-offenders hugely narrows the
available volunteer base and the human
potential on offer to an organisation. You
should therefore have in place policies or
procedures which avoid excluding or
discouraging people who have committed
minor or irrelevant offences, or whose
offences were many years ago. It is good
practice to indicate that a conviction does
not necessarily disbar a volunteer from
consideration and to give an indication
of what types of conviction would disbar
a person from a particular role.
You should also remember that CRB
checks do not, in themselves, guarantee
the safety of your users – they only
identify people who have been caught
in the past. They should only be used as
one tool in a Safety Culture which takes
steps to minimise risk and risky
situations, and which gives staff,
volunteers and users the confidence to
raise concerns, knowing that they will
be taken seriously and dealt with
swiftly and effectively. But judge each
case on its merits. If someone
committed an assault ten years ago,
you have to decide whether that is
material to you now. It is your duty of
care.
Screening should not be used as a
substitute for good selection procedures.
Adequate support, training and
supervision are necessary wherever
volunteers are working with any
vulnerable group of people.
Details of CRB checks can be found via
the attached link:
www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk
Page 19

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Other Checks and
Balances
It is important to develop the best
possible procedures to ensure that your
organisation protects its clients. The
following are useful:
• Policies or statements on safeguarding
the welfare of clients, access to money
and property and other matters where
abuse, handling confidential
information, fraud or breach of trust
may occur. The work of the organisation
should be planned in a way that
minimises risks.
• All clients or service users should be
clear about how to complain to an
independent person if they are
unhappy about the actions of a
worker or volunteer. If clients are
unable to make their own complaints,
additional safeguards may be needed
to monitor workers and volunteers.
• Agreed procedures for protecting
people, property and the reputation of
the organisation should be applied to
all; and all workers/volunteers should
understand what their work involves
and the limits of their activities.
Turning a Volunteer
Down
You do not have to involve any and
every volunteer. Sometimes you will not
be able to accept someone’s offer to
volunteer. For example if you do not
have space for someone in this role at
the moment, or if there is a good
reason why you think they would not
be suitable. It is tempting just to avoid
the issue and hope that they will lose
interest, but this gives a very bad image
of your organisation and of
volunteering in general and can cause
poor moral in staff and in other
volunteers.
The best way to handle this is to let them
know quickly and explain why. Let them
know that you appreciate their offer and
be as honest as you can. It’s important to
handle this sensitively – think how
upsetting it is to be rejected after a job
interview, and how much more so when
the person is offering to work for nothing.
If possible, suggest another organisation
which might be more suitable, or refer
them to the local Volunteer Centre to
explore other options.
Page 20

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Induction and training
Training is the process of equipping
volunteers with the essential skills
needed to perform the tasks associated
with their volunteering. It should be
proportionate to the responsibilities
that a volunteer will have. Some roles
(for example giving advice, or working
with vulnerable people) may require
extensive training. Other roles may
need only a brief orientation or
induction.
In the same way, some volunteers find
training an incentive, or feel that it
demonstrates that their role is valued
whilst others just want to get on with the
job they came to do. You might want to
distinguish between offering the
opportunity for training, and making it
obligatory.
about the work of the organisation and
the issues that it is dealing with, the
opportunity to learn a new role or take on
more responsibility) – if they want to.
Remember that some volunteers
appreciate the structure and security of
volunteering – and may not want any to
change or to develop their role.
You can provide the information and
learning experiences that volunteers need
in a variety of ways, and you may want to
provide some information more than
once or at different times:
Informal/face to face
One to one induction, coaching,
supervision or support sessions, volunteer
meetings, peer support or social events
Obligatory induction or training will
cover the things that volunteers really
need to know (for example, the aims
and ethos of the organisation, what their
role involves, the policies and practices
they will be expected to abide by).
Optional training should offer the
chance for volunteers to learn more or
develop their role (for example, more
Written information
Guidelines, information pack, policy
documents, volunteer handbook, websites
Formal/structured
training
Courses, workshops, talks and lectures,
distance learning packs
Page 21

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Bear in mind that some volunteers will
have had limited or adverse experiences
of training and education in the past. You
might want to deal in advance with any
fears or preconceptions that volunteers
might have about attending training
courses or workshops.
Basic induction
guidelines
All volunteers will need an induction
or orientation into your organisation -
it gives you the ability to explain how,
why and where you operate, where
they fit in, and what will be expected of
them. It should provide them with
enough background and practical
knowledge of your organisation to
allow them to understand their
contribution; and to show a new
volunteer that they are a welcome
addition to the team.
You should aim to answer
4 basic questions:
1.Why should I be volunteering here?
2.How will I be volunteering here?
3.How do I fit in with everyone else?
4.How I will be valued? (Support,
supervision, reward)
We now go on to explain on pages
22-28 what needs to be covered to
answer these four basic questions.
1. Clearly explain the
purpose of your group
• Your mission statement and the
values of your organisation (i.e.
the purpose of the organisation
or project and what it is trying to
achieve)
• Information about your
users/clients/beneficiaries
• A brief history of the organisation
• An overview of current services,
projects or activities
• Any future plans for the
organisation’s development
The aim of this discussion is for the
volunteer to understand and commit
themselves to the basic purpose of the
organisation.
Page 22

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
2. Clarify how volunteers fit
into this.
• An explanation of where volunteers fit
into the structure of the organisation,
and how they help it to achieve its
objectives
• The policies and procedures they will be
expected to abide by, and the
boundaries of their role.
• A introduction to any facilities, premises
and equipment they will be using
• A description of the expectations that
the organisation has of a volunteer, and
what they can expect from the
organisation
The purpose of this is to allow the
volunteer to understand where they fit
into the bigger picture, and to help them
find their way around.
3. Set out the social context
in which the volunteer will be
working.
Included in this section is:
• An introduction to the leadership and
structure of the organisation
• A welcoming by staff and current
volunteers
• A personal introduction to key staff and
other volunteers, particularly those who
will be working with or managing them
• A description of the values and ethos of
the organisation.This might be the place
to cover in more details policies such as
equal opportunities and confidentiality,
and to clarify how volunteers will be
expected to behave towards users and
colleagues, as a representative of the
organisation
This allows volunteers to make personal
connections that will help to sustain
involvement, and to feel comfortable
and confident in their interactions with
other people.
Page 23

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
4. Support and Supervision
Good support and supervision is about
finding an effective balance between the
needs of the volunteer and the needs of
the organisation. Each volunteer needs to
have a named supervisor or manager who
is their primary person for support and
supervision. Because volunteers
are not paid, they will stay only if they feel
enthusiastic and motivated. The
organisation needs to make sure
volunteers’ energy and enthusiasm is
harnessed effectively to benefit the
organisation.
SUPPORT is largely about
encouragement and
reassurance to the person:
• To focus on the volunteer as a person.
• To listen, and create an environment
where a volunteer is able to express
him/her self.
• To reassure where necessary.
• To make sure the volunteer feels that
their work is valued
• To be alert to possible changes or
personal issues affecting the volunteer
• To give (and receive) feedback, both
positive and negative – support does
not exclude constructive criticism
• To pick up on any concerns or
problems the volunteer has with their
work and deal with them before they
become more serious
• To assess training needs and facilitate
personal development
SUPERVISION is largely concerned with
the tasks being done by the volunteer,
and encouraging the person to be most
effective in their volunteering role:
• To evaluate progress, set objectives
and agree future action plans
• To give guidance in work based tasks
• To address any problems early and
deal with them in a constructive way
• To make sure the organisation is
accountable for the work being done
• To provide a forum for discussion,
clarifying priorities, enabling decision
making and agreeing on change
The balance between support or
supervision, the level of supervision,
and how closely you manage any
particular volunteer, will depend on
many factors, such as:
Page 24

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
• How experienced the volunteer is and
how long they have been with you
• The role of the volunteer and the level
of responsibility they have
• The potential for things to go wrong
(and how serious the problems could
be)
• Whether they are doing work that
needs to be monitored or which has to
meet organisational targets
• The personal circumstances of the
volunteer
• How often you are in contact with the
volunteer and whether this contact is
in person or by telephone, e-mail or
post
• What type of work they do and where
(on-site, at a distance or in the
community)
• How a volunteer currently feels about
their role, other volunteers and staff,
and whether there are any issues of
concern
• The methods you use to supervise staff
doing similar work
It may vary from person to person
(some volunteers will come with more
confidence or experience than others
and some may need more
encouragement or reassurance) and
may change over time (e.g. as
volunteers become more experienced,
take on new roles, or if their personal
circumstances change)
Volunteers are more likely to feel valued,
accepted and satisfied with their roles if
your agency provides adequate support.
In its various forms, support helps to
provide an opportunity to offload
problems, gain feedback and learn from
the experience of other volunteers and
paid staff.
Well supported volunteers will find it
easier to cope with their task and provide
a better service, with the added benefits
for your agency and possible clients.
Which support?
Methods of support for volunteers vary
from one agency to the next. However,
some of the most frequently used are:
• open door - where the volunteer cocoordinator
is always available to
volunteers
• regular telephone calls or e-mails
volunteers - especially for volunteers
who work away from the agency
• Specific session times when the
co-coordinator is available to
volunteers
Page 25

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
• Regular, one-to-one supervision
sessions
• Meetings of staff and volunteers
• Meetings solely for volunteers
• A volunteer newsletter or notice
board
• Regular social or training events
Each of these methods has their own
merits and pitfalls. For example:
■ An open door policy is very convenient
for the volunteer, but makes it difficult
for the co-coordinator to time-manage
effectively, and may mean that a few
vocal volunteers dominate your time.
Other volunteers may be concerned not
to ‘bother’ you, and you may not
become aware of problems until it is
too late
■ Specific session times allow more
structured control of the cocoordinators
time and may help you to
focus on the task rather than trying to
juggle volunteer support with other
priorities. However the times may need
to vary to fit in with volunteers’
schedules. Problems can arise if several
volunteers arrive at the same time.
■ Group meetings allow volunteers to
share ideas and opinions, but can be
dominated by a minority and not be
appropriate for volunteers who have
individual or personal issues to raise, or
who do not feel confident to speak up
in public.
■ Regular, one-to-one supervision is the
best way of making sure all volunteers
are supported properly, but can take up
a lot of time, and you may need to
make sure volunteers do not find the
idea daunting and are put at their ease.
With these pros and cons in mind,
a support programme that involves
two or three of the above is
advisable to cater for all needs.
Clearly defined and well advertised forms
of support are necessary. Volunteers will
not respond to vague offers of support
unless there is an identifiable means by
which they can obtain it. If you expect
volunteers to attend support sessions and
it is a requirement of their volunteering
then it should be made clear when a
volunteer first offers their time.
Page 26

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Balancing the needs of
the organisation and the
needs of volunteers
As a matter of principle, it is important
that all volunteers have equal access to
a basic level of support, although you
may want to commit some extra
support to those volunteers who may
otherwise not consider volunteering, or
who are experiencing a difficult time.
People who manage volunteers also need
to be aware that the support demanded
by some volunteers may be out of the
boundaries of the agency. It is important
to discuss support with volunteers, and to
be realistic if you do not believe your
agency has the necessary resources of
time or staff. Good support and
supervision is about finding an effective
balance between the needs of the
volunteer and the needs of the
organisation.
It is important that the person
managing volunteers is clear about
their own boundaries. Volunteers will
inevitably want to share their problems
with someone they know and trust, but
spending too much time on individual
support means that less time is
available to other volunteers.
Volunteer Supervision
Supervision or feedback sessions are the
volunteer finding out how they are fitting
in with your agency, its aims and goals. It
is normally done on a one-to-one basis
with the volunteer. Volunteers should be
encouraged to bring their own agenda to
a supervision session and see it as a time
where they can freely and confidentially
express their thoughts, opinions and
doubts. For the member of staff it is an
occasion to be informed about work
undertaken, planned or forgotten about.
It is an opportunity to assess progress,
identify problems and plan for the future.
This is also the time to raise specific issues
that you are concerned about. These
should be dealt with at the time rather
than allowing them to build up and
become a major issue. It is an opportunity
to assess progress, identify problems and
plan for the future. This is also the time to
raise specific issues that you are concerned
about. These should be dealt with at the
time rather than allowing them to build
up and become a major issue .We
recommend you do this once a year.
Points to be raised in
supervision or feedback
session
• Always put the volunteer at their
ease and select the venue carefully
(a confidential space where you will
not be interrupted)
• What is going well?
• What could be improved?
• How are relations with staff,
volunteers, clients and management?
Page 27

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
• Are there practical problems
emerging (e.g. expenses, health &
safety)? Are there any policy issues
over which the volunteer or
supervisor has concerns?
• Would the volunteer benefit from
any extra training?
• Does the volunteer have any
personal matters that maybe
impacting their volunteering.
• Are there any skills or roles that the
volunteer would like to develop in
the future?
Consideration should be given to the
recording of supervision sessions. It is
a matter for each agency to decide
whether they will keep records of
supervision sessions, where any records
will be kept and who will have access to
these records.
• This is also the time for you to give
feedback and positive
encouragement and to say thank
you to your volunteer
Page 28

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Volunteer Expenses
One practical way of making sure that volunteers feel supported and valued is to
make sure that they are not left out of pocket. Not every volunteer will want or
need to claim expenses, but for people who are unemployed or on a fixed or low
income such as benefits or a pension, this can be a real issue. Even quite small
expenses such as a bus fare can make volunteering too expensive for some people.
Expenses which organisations can
legitimately offer to volunteers include:
• Travel expenses from home to and
from the place of volunteering
• Travel expenses in the course of
volunteering
• (Either a mileage rate for volunteers
who use their own car, or the actual
cost of bus, rail or taxi fares)
• Meals or refreshments provided by
you, or reimbursement of the actual
cost of meals or refreshments taken
while volunteering.
• The cost of specialist clothing,
materials etc. required to volunteer
• Childcare costs, or the care of adult
dependants, while the carer is
volunteering
Ideally, volunteers should always be
reimbursed the actual cost of their
expenses, with documentary evidence
to back this up (e.g. a receipt, bus
ticket or mileage record).
You need to be aware that if you offer ‘flat
rate’ expenses (however small the
amount), or if you pay them more than
the actual cost (e.g. if you ‘round up’ the
amount you give them) or if you explicitly
offer volunteers perks with a monetary
value in exchange for a certain number of
hours work, you may inadvertently be
creating a contract of employment. It can
also create problems for volunteers on
welfare benefits. Contact your local
Volunteer Centre for guidance if you think
you might be doing this.
You need to make sure that there is an
organisational culture which
encourages volunteers to claim
expenses, without feeling guilty or
uncomfortable, and a clear process for
doing so. If volunteers don’t want
expenses, encourage them to claim
them and donate them back to the
organisation (if they are tax payers and
sign a Gift Aid declaration, charities can
then claim back the tax) – but there
should be no pressure for volunteers to
do so.
Some organisations, particularly small
voluntary organisations or community
groups, may not have the resources to
pay expenses. Some volunteers will leave
or choose another organisation as a result
– so you might want to make a
commitment to paying expenses in
future, and to include volunteer expenses
as a budget item in future funding
applications.
Page 29

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Recognition of your Volunteers
Recognition is an important way of
showing your volunteers that they are
really valued and an important part of
the team. It does not need to involve
major appreciation events and can
include a number of aspects to ensure
that appreciation is a central part of
your organisation’s ethos.
Of course, a social event/celebration is
usually appreciated and even though not
everyone will come – volunteers like to be
asked!
Here are some other ways to recognise your
volunteers:
■ By everyone in organisation!
Trustees, managers and staff - not
just the volunteer coordinator.
■ Volunteers should have a voice – use
Meetings/suggestion/support
meetings/supervision or review notes
to allow volunteers to express views
on the organisation and how they
might suggest
improvements/changes.
■ Be open to feedback – e.g. Get
Feedback on Policies and Procedures
– Volunteer reps on Management
committee, consultation documents,
Newsletter (formal or informal)
■ Help development - regular
supervision review meetings, training
programmes (keep records), moving
into other voluntary roles on offer
■ Recognise achievements - certificates,
thank you cards, when leaving you
may well be asked to give references
■ Recognise your volunteers publically –
at AGMs, in Newsletters, other
events.
■ Learn from your volunteers – be open
to volunteers helping the organisation
to develop, they may bring many
skills from other parts of their lives
■ Say thanks - many volunteers
appreciate a simple, sincere thank
you. Especially if can be made specific
– e.g. thank you for the way that you
handled that situation, phone call etc.
■ Some organisations give Christmas
cards or birthday cards – but if you do
this be sure not to leave anyone out.
Page 30

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Keeping Volunteers Motivated
Volunteers are more likely to STAY if they:
■ Feel appreciated and recognised by
the organisation
■ Are used effectively and can see that
their work is needed
■ Feel that they are doing something
worthwhile and that they do make a
difference
■ There is the flexibility for them to be
able to change or develop their role
or commitment if they want to
■ Are provided with an opportunity for
learning, skills development and
personal growth
■ Feel confident that they can handle
the tasks they are asked to do
■ Are adequately supported and
supervised
■ Have a sense of belonging and being
part of a team, and are given
opportunities to socialise with others.
■ Are consulted about their work and
have the opportunity to contribute to
policy and decision making if they
want to
■ Are accepted and supported by other
volunteers and paid staff
■ Feel that their personal needs and
motivations are being met
Volunteers are likely to LEAVE if they
■ Feel unappreciated or taken for
granted
■ Have too many demands made on
them or on their time
■ Are asked to do things they don’t feel
equipped to cope wit
■ Are given too much involvement and
responsibility – or too little
■ Have unrealistic or unclear
expectations of their role
■ End up out of pocket
■ Don’t enjoy what they do or feel that
it’s not valuable
■ Feel that their time is being wasted or
their work badly organised
■ Feel isolated
Page 31

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Dealing with Problems
If volunteers know what is expected of them, and are properly trained and
supervised, it is less likely that things will go wrong, and that any problems that do
arise are dealt with quickly and effectively.
However it is a good idea to consider:
• What a volunteer can do if they have a complaint about the organisation, a
member of staff or another volunteer
• What you will do if you are unhappy with the behavior of a volunteer
Complaints made by volunteers
Volunteers need to know who they go to if they have a complaint about the organisation,
a member of staff or another volunteer, and to be confident that their complaint will be
taken seriously and handled sensitively.
Making a complaint – a sample policy for volunteers
__________________ (name of organisation) is concerned about the welfare of its
volunteers and takes any complaints seriously. If you have a complaint about the
organisation, a member of staff or another volunteer, the following procedure should be
used to make the organisation aware of the problem.
STAGE 1:
You should first of all raise the matter informally with your supervisor.
STAGE 2:
If this does not improve matters, or if the complaint is against your supervisor, you should
request a meeting with __________________ (a senior manager or trustee) and put your
complaint to them. The person you are complaining about will have the opportunity to
respond, and to take steps to improve the situation if necessary.
STAGE 3:
If after ___ days there is still reason for complaint, then you should put the complaint in
writing to __________________ (a senior person such as the chief executive or chair of the
trustees). They will investigate the problem and let you know the outcome, and any
further steps that will be taken, in writing within ___ days of receiving your complaint.
Page 32

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Complaints about Volunteers
It is good practice to have a clear and transparent procedure for making sure that
complaints are handled fairly, and to make sure volunteers are aware of this and
have access to a written copy of the procedure.
The first step is always to try to resolve the issue informally, by talking to the volunteer.
They may be unaware that there is a problem, or they may be bored with or unsuited to
the role. Further training or a change of role may resolve the problem.
An example of a policy for dealing with complaints about
volunteers
_________________ (name of the organisation) is committed to treating volunteers fairly
and to making sure that any complaints about volunteers’ behavior are dealt with in a fair
and transparent way, giving volunteers the opportunity to put their case.
If a complaint is made about a volunteer’s behavior, the following procedure will
take place.
Step 1:
In the first instance, the volunteer’s immediate supervisor will discuss the matter
informally with the volunteer to try and resolve the problem.
Step 2:
If this does not solve the problem, the volunteer’s supervisor will arrange a formal
meeting with the volunteer to discuss the problem, giving the volunteer the chance
to respond to the complaint. An informal warning may be made and steps agreed
to change the volunteer’s behavior.
Step 3:
If there are further grounds for complaint, a formal meeting will be arranged
between the volunteer, volunteer supervisor and ____________________
(a senior person within the organisation, for example the manager or a trustee).
A formal warning may be issued, and the volunteer made aware that if the
volunteer repeats the behavior they will be asked to leave.
Page 33

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Step 4:
If the offending behavior is repeated, the volunteer will be
asked to leave.
In the case of serious misconduct (for example violence or theft) the volunteer may be
suspended immediately while an investigation takes place. The investigation will be
carried out by the volunteer’s supervisor and _______________________ (a senior person
in the organisation) A decision will be made within ____ days and the volunteer informed
of the decision (state how they will be informed). If the complaint is upheld, the
volunteer will be asked to leave.
Volunteers will have the right:
• To be accompanied at meetings at any stage by a friend, volunteer or staff member
of their choice.
• To appeal against any decision made. The appeal should be made in writing to
_____________________________ (a senior person such as the chief executive or
chair) and the volunteer will have the opportunity to put their case in person to
them. A decision will be made within ___ days and this decision will be final.
Page 34

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Saying Goodbye
Volunteers leave for many reasons – because of changes in their personal
circumstances, caring responsibilities, to take a paid job, because they move house
or leave the area, or just because they want to pursue other interests or priorities.
Of course, others may leave because they are bored or de-motivated or unhappy
with their experience.
Do you know why volunteers leave your organisation?
It’s a good idea to have an ‘exit strategy’ for volunteers, both those who have just
dropped out and those who have given you notice that they will be leaving.
This helps the volunteer to:
• Feel able to move on without feeling guilty
• Be thanked in some way for the contribution they have made
• Know that they will be made welcome if they want to return later on
• Have the opportunity to tell you why they are leaving and give any comments or
suggestions
You could do this with a phone call, or by having an exit interview, or by sending a letter
and feedback form.
Volunteer’s reasons for leaving – and suggestions that they make – should be
recorded somewhere, and evaluated at regular intervals, so that you can note any
recurring themes and make sure they feed in to future plans or developments.
Page 35

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Further Volunteer Support and website links
www.volunteering.org.uk
www.investinginvolunteers.org.uk
www.ivr.org.uk
www.ncvo-vol.org.uk
All the above website have useful guides and information that can be easily
downloaded.
Further Support
Community Impact Bucks has produced a number of guides on all aspects
of running a voluntary or community organisation.
Guides available include:
Guide to Project Planning
Guide to Funding
Guide to Business Planning
Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Guide to Sustainable Funding and Financing Options.
All these guides can be downloaded from the Community Impact Bucks
websitewww.communityimpactbucks.org.uk
For further information about any issues raised in this guide please contact:
Community Impact Bucks, Unit B, The Firs, Bierton, Aylesbury HP22 5DX
Tel: 0845 389 0389, Fax: 01296 331464
Email: volunteering@communityimpactbucks.org.uk
Web: www.communityimpactbucks.org.uk
Registered Charity No. 1070267
PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Community Impact Bucks
Tel: 0845 389 0389 Fax: 01296 331464 www.communityimpactbucks.org.uk

MOSAIC – COMMUNITY CHAMPION RECRUITMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
What is a Community Champion?
A Community Champion is a volunteer from, or linked to, a Black or Minority Ethnic
community with a growing passion for National Parks. Community Champions promote the
National Parks in their community.
Community Champions promote the National Park that is most local to them through various
activities such as organising visits for members of their community; giving out information
about the National Park informally; giving formal presentations; working with National Park
Authority staff on stands at urban events. Some community champions have become board
members of the YHA, National Park Societies or members of Local Access Forums.
The Campaign for National Parks found that, as a group, Community Champions were far
more involved with the National Parks before they joined Mosaic than is typical for ethnic
minority groups. Just under half of all Community Champions report that they were regular or
frequent visitors to the National Parks before becoming involved in our Mosaic project. Over
half of Champions had rarely or never visited before Mosaic.
How much time did Champions give to Mosaic?
By the end of the three-year Mosaic project in 2012, there were 223 Community Champions.
Quarterly timesheets show that Community Champions contributed over 2,900 days to the
Mosaic project and National Parks during project period. While some Champions put in
several days per month, others might only attend one event a year. Mosaic’s flexible
approach to this has been identified as a key reason for the project’s success.
How many people did they introduce?
While the actual number of people they have introduced is difficult to quantify, the final
evaluation of Mosaic estimates that at least 28,000 people have been introduced to the
National Parks by the Community Champions during the life of the project. This includes at
least 9,000 people who have been taken on visits to the National Parks for the first time
(Gilfillan, Mosaic Final Evaluation, April 2012).
How did we recruit Community Champions?
What worked?
ü Extensive media coverage for the project in the ethnic minority media and in the general
media (including a feature in The Times, a series of features in Emel, a Muslim lifestyle
magazine, features in community publications and specialist environmental publications,
interviews on local radio and community radio);

ü Networking and personal contact from the Mosaic project officers – for example, through
community groups, primary care trusts, non-profit organisations. Face-to-face contact
worked best;
ü The Mosaic website was optimised for key search terms such as ‘ethnic minority’, ‘BME’
and ‘countryside.’
ü Community Champions recruiting new champions through their own networks.
Many active Community Champions proactively approached the project after hearing about it
through word of mouth, reading articles in newspapers or magazines and searching the
internet. This is repeatable by the National Parks and emphasises the need for articles and
features about the UK’s National Parks in urban media.
What didn’t work?
The methods of recruiting champions that worked least well were:
û Cold calling organisations, charities, local authorities.
û E-mailing community organisations.
What encouraged retention?
Flexibility
The Community Champion model worked equally well for people who were very busy and for
those who had more time, because the approach is flexible. Community Champions agreed
minimum time commitments and targets with their Mosaic project officers, based on what they
could and wanted to do with the project.
Community Champions appreciated the flexibility that the Mosaic project team showed in
supporting their involvement in project activities - for example in allowing some residentials to
include children when it was impossible for some participants to arrange childcare.
Networking with other Community Champions
Community Champions report that networking with other Community Champions has been
one of the most valuable ways to build confidence and get enthusiastic about what National
Parks can offer. The Campaign for National Parks organised large annual events in a
National Park for all Community Champions and Mosaic project partners to facilitate this.
Financial Assistance for the First Visit
During the last year of the project, the Campaign for National Parks set up the Lets Do It!
fund, where Community Champions could apply for up to £250 as a contribution towards
organising a visit. It was an important catalyst for helping newer Community Champions to
start organising group visits to the National Parks.

Project officers’ interpersonal skills
The Mosaic project officers brought strong interpersonal skills, which have been cited by
several Community Champions as an important reason why they became involved in Mosaic.
Enjoyment
Fundamentally Community Champions are proud to be part of the Campaign for National
Parks’ Mosaic project and of their role in it. They enjoy being Community Champions.
What problems did we encounter with recruiting and retaining Community
Champions?
Distance from urban centres
Some National Parks are far from the nearest urban centre and difficult to reach by public
transport. Where this is the case, it was more difficult to recruit and retain Community
Champions, for example the closest urban area to Exmoor National Park is 42 miles from the
nearest National Park visitor centre. Northumberland and the Lake District are 31 and 30
miles away respectively.
Project officers covered huge geographical areas
The three full-time Mosaic project officers covered nine National Parks and the YHA between
them. For example, one covered the cities of Manchester, Preston, Leeds, Bradford,
Newcastle, Stockton-on-Tees, Middlesbrough and others. This made it very difficult to fully
cover all target urban areas, particularly those located further from where the project officer
was based.
In some cases, this made it difficult to support less confident Community Champions
adequately. Where the Campaign for National Parks has been able to provide this support,
people who initially lacked confidence have become some of the most vocal and active
Community Champions.
The recession and reduced funding
Most of the 30 Community Champions interviewed during the final project evaluation believed
that the recession and public spending cuts had negatively affected their role as a Community
Champion. The biggest impact was the reduced capacity of people to pay for trips to the
National Parks. Champions also reported that it had become difficult to find funding from other
sources to subsidise the costs of group visits, even though the amounts of funding required to
facilitate group visits are relatively small. Consequently, Champions reported that they are
scaling back the frequency and types of group visits that they organise, taking smaller groups
less often and planning fewer residential or activity-centred events.

How does Mosaic help Community Champions actively promote the National Parks?
Training and mentoring
The Campaign for National Parks provided training and mentoring to Community Champions,
which for many was essential for preparing them to promote the parks to other people. This
included group training in organising a visit and fundraising as well as sponsoring individual
Champions to attend training according to their own needs and interests. This has included,
First Aid, minibus driving, public speaking skills and map reading.
Group Leader Visits
Community Champions attend a Group Leader Visit when they first sign up to the Mosaic
project. This is usually a residential weekend for up to ten new Community Champions,
organised by the Campaign for National Parks and the National Park Authority. It is an
opportunity for Champions to meet staff and members of the National Park Authority and
each other, as well as learn about a particular part of the National Park. For many Champions
this mixture of learning about the place and meeting people who they can work with to
organise visits was a key moment.
Personal approach and flexibility
Project Officers took a personal approach, introducing Community Champions to people,
places and organisations according to their interest, or put together a training programme
suitable for that individual.
Each Community Champion started from a different position in terms of experience of the
countryside, knowledge of the National Parks and confidence in their own organisational or
leadership abilities. This is reflected in the different lengths of time that Community
Champions have taken to become ‘fully fledged’. Some stated that they could have been a
Community Champion immediately, but became better after taking part in a Group Leader
Visit. Other Champions felt it took them longer, perhaps a year or more, before they felt
confident to be active Community Champions.
What difference has being a Community Champion made to people?
“Mosaic has taken the initiative and has sown the seeds between ethnic groups
and National Parks. As a Community Champion I am proud to be part of this
development and I look forward to the future with Dartmoor and Exmoor
nurturing the seeds we’ve sown, as they grow into fruitful trees.” Sunder
Braganza, Community Champion, Plymouth
© Campaign for National Parks 2012. The Campaign for National Parks asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this
document in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

MOSAIC – BUILDING CONNECTIONS
The aim of the Campaign for National Parks’ Mosaic project is to cement long term
sustainable engagement between black and minority ethnic (BME) communities and the
National Parks and Youth Hostels Association (YHA).
Mosaic achieved this through building and nurturing connections between the National Parks
and the YHA and Community Champions; people from or linked to BME communities who
have a passion for National Parks, want to get more involved with them and promote them in
their communities.
This paper shows the importance of connections and gives examples of how the Mosaic
project has worked to build effective connections between people and landscapes and
between Community Champions and staff, volunteers and members of National Park
Authorities.
How Mosaic works
Mosaic introduces people to other people and people to places who may not have otherwise
been connected. Once the connection is made, and in some cases supported, the role of the
Mosaic project becomes redundant. Building that connection takes 30 seconds in some cases
– in others it takes years.
In the first instance, Mosaic project officers are the main link between Champions and the
National Park they live closest to. Project officers recruit new Community Champions, work
with them on a personal development plan and create opportunities for them to get to know
the National Park and National Park Authority staff and members.
Connections with landscape
1. For most people, a single visit to a National Park and its awe-inspiring landscape is enough
to connect with nature and inspire others about it.
Around half of all Community Champions had never or rarely visited a National Park before
their first experience with the Mosaic project 1 . Most Community Champions attend a Group
Leader Visit when they first get involved with Mosaic. Group Leader Visits are organised by
the Campaign for National Parks and a National Park Authority. A small group of Community
Champions spend two days learning about a particular part of their local National Park. They
experience different activities – conservation volunteering, cycling or walking for example. For
many that weekend is enough to get started on promoting the park to others and organising
visits to it.
1 Mosaic final evaluation report, Liz Mackie, 2012

“The National Parks are amazing places; good places to communicate and spend time
with your friends and family. It reconnects you with the green space; it is important to tell
everyone to not take for granted the green space that is around us,” commented Sarah
Liu, a Community Champion with the North York Moors National Park after her first
Group Leader Visit with Mosaic.
2. National Parks can reconnect people to places in surprising and important ways. For
people who have come to live in England, it can be an important way of feeling more at
home.
Lucy moved to the UK from Zimbabwe 7 years ago. Most of her close relatives are still back
home. While walking in the South Downs during a Group Leader Visit the group came to a
slightly wooded area, sheltered in a dip on the exposed downland. “I suddenly feel at home,”
said Lucy. “This place is just like where I grew up in Zimbabwe.” Later she commented, “This
is where I come to feel at home now.”
Nurjahan, took a group of older Bangladeshi women on a walk in the Yorkshire Dales. They
stopped by a stream. Immediately the women removed their shoes and socks and splashed
into the water, exclaiming that they hadn’t been in a stream like this since being girls in
Bangladesh.
3. Taking part in something in the National Park builds a connection with the landscape that is
deeper than enjoyment.
“I understand what these plants are now, why they are here, what effect they are having.
Helping to maintain this land means that when I visit it next I can feel that I helped keep it like
it is, I can tell others about this land,” said one of a group Community Champions while cutting
gorse on the South Downs and burning it.
The role of the Mosaic project officer
4. A personal relationship between Mosaic project officer and Community Champion ensures
that the Champion’s experience of the Mosaic project fits with their particular ambitions or
needs. Project officers are flexible with how they use the Mosaic framework according to
each situation.
Mosaic project officers make sure to meet with Champions face-to-face as much as possible
(despite covering huge geographical areas). This is particularly important for a first meeting or
induction. Every Community Champion gets involved with the National Parks in a different
way. There is a huge range of experience and interest amongst the Community Champions. It
is only through this one-to-one contact that the project officers can introduce Champions to
the right people, arrange for suitable training and support them to organise their own events.

5. Mosaic project officers are facilitators. They are constantly networking, introducing people
and then removing themselves from the picture.
Vanessa, a Community Champion, was struggling to get started organising an ‘English Walk
Caribbean Food’ event. At a National Park organised event, her project officer, introduced her
to a local South Downs ranger. He then introduced her to several other people. Vanessa
worked with these new contacts to organise the first ‘English Walks Caribbean Foods’ event,
where local South Downs residents and new visitors to the South Downs, most from a
Caribbean background enjoyed a walk followed by a Jamaican lunch together. There was a
new cultural experience for everyone at the event. Vanessa is planning a second event – and
will work directly with these contacts to organise it.
Towards the end of the Mosaic project, the Lake District National Park Authority held a
handover event with Community Champions. The project officer did not attend. After the
event, Champions reported how it was useful that he didn’t attend, because it forced them
and the National Park Authority to work together without automatically turning to him. It
helped them develop a functioning relationship.
6. Champions who are new to National Parks and organising events or other promotional
activities are doing something new. But they will achieve great things with support from a
project officer who they trust and who lets them get on with it.
One Champion comments, “I never thought I could do these things. We learnt these new
places from the Mosaic project. When we had an idea the project officer didn’t change it, she
just helped us with thinking about how to do it. She believed we could do it, so we believed
we could do it. And we did it! And next time, we know we can do it.”
Changing attitudes and organisations
7. Personal relationships can make big changes
The Campaign for National Parks’ Mosaic project aimed to affect organisational change in its
partner organisations, the National Park Authorities and the YHA. One of the indicators of this
was that champions would become part of official decision making fora. While this is
important, we’ve found that it is the personal relationships that develop between Champions
and National Park Authority.
Staff that have the power to make changes. An external evaluation of the Mosaic project
backs this up saying that: “National Park CEOs feel that personal contact that NPA staff and
Members have had with Community Champions has had a big impact, helping them [NPA

staff and Members] to better understand how to break down barriers for ethnic minority
communities, and to feel more confident about working with and for ethnically diverse
communities.” 2
8. Informal settings and face to face introductions are best
Group Leader Visits (as described above) create excellent settings for people to meet who
would not have normally met. Champions meet staff, rangers, Members and volunteers from
the National Park Authority and other organisations. The visits provide an informal setting
which allow people to explore their wider interests and build stronger relationships. It is after
Group Leader Visits, that many champions start to organise their own events, using the
contacts they’ve made during the event.
They also offer chance encounters. Northumberland champions got into conversation with a
cafe owner during a group leader visit. She told them about their upcoming Guy Fawkes Night
Bonfire. The Champions brought their community group right up to the Northumberland
National Park for the display.
9. Connections don’t automatically happen between Community Champions.
Community Champions are different and from hugely varying backgrounds. Working
relationships form between people who have something in common, this might be cultural, a
sporting interest, similar aged children. It might be between champions who go on to work
together, or between a champion and a National Park ranger, for example.
Over the past three years, the Campaign for National Parks’ Mosaic project has focussed
building connections to create foundation for positive change in our countryside and cities.
Aisha Mirza, a Lake District Community Champion sums it up: “It’s the friendships I’ve made
with so many people, including staff working in the National Parks, volunteers, the Mosaic
team and the champions themselves. It is these ties that make this project so unique.”
© Campaign for National Parks 2012. The Campaign for National Parks asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this
document in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
2 Mosaic Final Evaluation Report, Gilfillan Partnership, April 2012

MOSAIC - OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO ACCESS
Overcoming barriers to access for disadvantaged groups, including ethnic minority
communities, is complex and time consuming. It requires commitment and, in particular,
requires that time is spent making links with communities, understanding their needs and
having a flexible approach to working to take up opportunities as and when they arise.
Building a group of skilled and empowered community champions is invaluable in gaining
participation by the community; and in supporting agencies to learn about and appreciate
the barriers communities face and how to overcome them.
What Are The Barriers
people face? 1
Awareness
Don’t know what National
Parks (NPs) are, access
rights, how to get there
and that they are free to
enter.
Relevance
Don’t know what there is
to do in the National
Parks.
Some think ‘they are not
for people like us’.
Personal Capacity versus
hierarchy of need.
What Factors Can Overcome
These Barriers?
Make literature available in
urban areas and community
hubs.
NP Authorities attend urban
events like Mela’s to promote
the NPs, their website and
visitor centres.
Community Champions
promoting the NP by word of
mouth and organising taster
visits.
Information in urban areas and
promotion of NPs in BME
media and non-specialist
media.
Having representative images
in NP promotional materials.
Network in the communities
and keep them informed about
opportunities.
Comparison and
Lessons Learnt about
Geographic Differences
Recent migrants have
different priorities and
less disposable income
compared to large
established communities.
There is more
infrastructure support in
northern England and
London than some areas
in the South.
1 The barriers were identified by the Gilfillan Partnership through interviews with community champions
during the final evaluation of the Mosaic project.
CNP Registered Charity No. 295336. Company limited by guarantee, registered in England & Wales No. 2045556 at 6-7 Barnard Mews, London SW11 1QU.

What Are The Barriers
people face?
Concerns
Fear of going to unfamiliar
places, getting lost, racist
attack or abuse, feeling
unwelcome.
Specific religious or
cultural needs may not be
catered for.
Infrequency of public
transport.
Accessibility
Some National Parks are
difficult to get to by public
transport.
Don’t know where to
access information about
National Parks.
Economic circumstances
Skills
E.g. Countryside etiquette,
map reading, organising
group visits, confidence
What Factors Can Overcome
These Barriers?
Facilitate events where people
can meet staff, senior
managers, local farmers and
service providers to build
relationships, discuss
concerns and access needs.
Inform people of how to plan
events around public transport.
Provide leaflets and websites
with clear English and promote
these in urban areas.
Provide information about low
cost options for days out, i.e.
family tickets, and picnics.
Highlight easy-to-access
funds.
Offer training to community
leaders so that they can visit
independently and feel
empowered to share the
knowledge with others.
Comparison and
Lessons Learnt About
Geographic Differences
Almost impossible to get to
some NPs by public
transport, such as Exmoor.
Spending power
differences.
© Campaign for National Parks 2012. The Campaign for National Parks asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of
this document in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
CNP Registered Charity No. 295336. Company limited by guarantee, registered in England & Wales No. 2045556 at 6-7 Barnard Mews, London SW11 1QU.

VALUE OF ETHNIC MINORITY ENGAGEMENT
TO PARTNER ORGANISATIONS
Evidence from the Mosaic project suggests that participating organisations enjoyed a
breadth of benefits as a result of engaging with ethnic minority communities. This
document outlines the “business case” for engaging with new audiences and provides a
flavor of the value gained.
The Business Case
The ten National Park Authorities (NPAs) in England, the YHA and CNP all chose to
participate in the Mosaic project (2009-2012) for different reasons. All reported that there is
a “business case” for taking part in the project, including specific reasons such as:
The Statutory obligation to address the “second purpose” of National Parks, which is
“to promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special
qualities of the Parks,” and in particular to become better at reaching out to new
audiences;
A financial case: by investing about £4,000 match funding and about 20-30 days of inkind
time toward the project (per partner, per year), partner organisations were able to
leverage a return of investment worth about £50,000 (per partner, per year) through
external funding;
The value gained from engaging new volunteers in the long-term, valued at
£150/volunteer day (the standard recommended measure). With 2,616 volunteer days
given over three years, this equals £392,400; or £130,800 per year; or £13,000 per
partner / year;
A desire to “change attitudes of staff and Members; seeking to embed a deeper
understanding of why the National Parks need to engage with wider audiences, what
prevents some populations from using the National Parks and what NPA staff and
Members can do to change this” (Mosaic final evaluation 2012, p. 26-27).
Examples of organisational change
The following provides examples of positive organisational changes resulting from Mosaic,
in the partner organisations:
Broads: Supporting a new Community Champion to become a Volunteer Ranger.
Campaign for National Parks: Significant changes to strategic plan 2011-2014, placing
great emphasis on engaging new audiences and integrating this work as part of core
activity.
CNP Registered Charity No. 295336. Company limited by guarantee, registered in England & Wales No. 2045556 at 6-7 Barnard Mews, London SW11 1QU.

Dartmoor: Consultation with Champions on need to reflect more diversity in
communication materials, and subsequent improvements e.g. in images on outreach van
panel.
Exmoor: Creation of the New Audiences Fund, to which Champions can apply for funding
to bring new audiences into the National Park.
Lake District: Signing up the interested champions as LDNPA volunteers and working
towards having a policy in place to support them in their role.
New Forest: Attending the Mela in Southampton annually and being willing to travel
outside the National Park to engage and promote the National Park in the urban area.
North York Moors: Arranging for a member representative to present at the Champions’
twice a year meetings, and then providing Champions a slot once a year at the member
meetings to deliver an update presentation.
Northumberland: Moving forward the Volunteer Service at Northumberland National Park
Authority to more widely represent their audience.
Peak District: Inviting Champion representatives to key planning/consultation meetings on
the new Management Plan.
South Downs: Securing high level support for the Mosaic project through a Member
presentation in September 2011; and the NPA allocating budget for continued support to
Champions in 2012-13.
Yorkshire Dales: Reviewing the way Champions are registered as volunteers and the
support they will receive in their role.
YHA: Actively recruiting and co-opting a Champion as Trustee to Board.
Examples of value gained
Participating organisations reported the following value gained from engaging with ethnic
minority communities:
A renewed sense of inspiration, and increased staff morale, gained from interacting
with people new to the National Parks and their enthusiasm for introducing these
landscapes to new people.
Positive media coverage, in particular in local media (e.g. Lancashire Life) and in ethnic
minority media with which there was little previous contact (e.g. TV channel Iqra,
Eastern Eye).
CNP Registered Charity No. 295336. Company limited by guarantee, registered in England & Wales No. 2045556 at 6-7 Barnard Mews, London SW11 1QU.

Positive feedback from Natural England and Defra in response to engagement work
and pro-active effort to engage new audiences.
An increase in the number of ethnic minority visitors to National Parks, and an
increased awareness of the National Parks among ethnic minority communities.
Learning useful lessons about how to respond to different cultural needs.
Staff and Members/Trustees increased awareness of the barriers ethnic minority
communities experience to accessing the National Parks.
Establishing new contacts with ethnic minority community organisations and
developing long-lasting relationships with individual champions.
An increase in the number of supporters, members and friends of the National Parks.
© Campaign for National Parks 2012. The Campaign for National Parks asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of
this document in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
CNP Registered Charity No. 295336. Company limited by guarantee, registered in England & Wales No. 2045556 at 6-7 Barnard Mews, London SW11 1QU.

Community Engagement Survey, Feb 2018
Organisation organisation's aim describe community
engagement projects
main audiences /users
currently
target groups
previous CE
work
Wild at Heart
Project -
Sheffield &
Rotherham
Wildlife Trust
Rambles
Bradfield
Walkers are
Welcome
Sheffield
Environmental
Movement
(SEM)
Nature Based Activities for Adults Wild at Heart project Adults who are over 50 or other
adults who have been referred
into the project due to social
isolation.
Promoting walking and rambling
for all, protecting footpaths,
campaigning for access to the
countryside, protection of the
countryside.
Our work inter alia involves
ensuring that footpaths and
facilities for walkers are
maintained, improved and well
signposted
contributing where relevant to local
tourism plans and regeneration
strategies
adding to the local economy by
working and promoting local
businesses
promoting the health benefits of
walking and increasing
participation
encouraging the use of public
transport to access the countryside
To promote access to and
participation in the natural, built
and heritage environments for
people from Black, Asian, Minority
Ethnic & Refugee (BAMER)
communities.
Sheffield Walking Festival.
Ongoing research into "lost" rights
of way.
Nothing immediate beyond
existing work with SLLP
Delivering Open Air Laboratories
(OPAL) Explore Nature surveys as
an environmental citizenship
education project to people in
lower socio-economic groups.
Providing countryside
environmental activities such as
organised guided health/historical
walks, environmental heritage
activities, environmental
photography, environmental
pottery, educational farms tours ,
taster coarse fishing and horse
riding sessions.
Anybody, adults of any age
mainly.
Potential visitors both locally
and nationally
Website stats (45k hits pa) are
difficult to break down by
region/area
Our main audiences or
beneficiaries are people from
lower socio-economics groups
specifically BAMER
New Arrivals &
Assylum Seekers
BAME groups
Walking for
health groups
and visually
impaired.
People with a
disability
People with
limited access to
transport
Wider groups
such as people
from deprived
white
communities
No
Working with
the Health
Walks.
Sheffield
Walking
Forum
member.
Project
identifying
routes for
people with a
disability
http://www.br
adfieldwalkers.org.uk
/PDF/Wheely
%20easy%20
walks%20leafl
et.pdf
Yes, SEM has
done surveys,
reports and
projects in
relation to this
issue.
Prepared for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership by Waymark Interpretation LLP

Community Engagement Survey, Feb 2018
Stannington
Library
Ride Sheffield
Bradfield
Traditional
Music
Weekend
Stannington Library is a
community library and has been
run by volunteers for the past 3
years. The library, as well as
lending books and DVDS, also runs
a number of groups - under 5s
Story Time, Baby Time, a number
of Reading groups, a Writers
Group, a Gardening club and a
Friendship Group. We also hold a
Story Festival each year. The
Library is very small and we have
ambitions to extend. At present we
receive a small grant form the City
Council for core running costs
(which are difficult to source from
others sources) but this is not
guaranteed to continue.
Ride Sheffield was formed to deal
with the historical lack of
engagement between mountain
bikers and land
owners/managers/local
authorities/rights of way teams. A
two-way dialogue is essential to
ensure that land managers can
alert mountain bikers to
ecological/archaeological/landscap
e impacts and bikers can both offer
advice as to the best way to
maintain rights of way and offer
practical help in that regard.
Now in its 15th year we organise a
three day festival of traditional
singing and traditional
instrumental music with singers
and musicians attending from all
over the UK & Ireland.The festival
was started to give publicity to the
strong tradition of singing in the
west Sheffield.The event is non
profit making and its receives no
public funding with those attending
covering the small cost of putting
on the event.The public are
welcome to attend and the events
We have taken part in the
Stannington Carnival for the past
three years and are this year are
more involved in the running of
this event.Stannington Story
Festival - organised by the Library
with participation from local
authors, storytellers, poets etc.We
engage with local schools and the
Stannington TARA.We ran a
popular and successful IPad
course and have been asked to
run more of this type of event.We
have free WiFi and hope to soon
replace our old, slow computers
with faster models.
Yearly meetings and ongoing
dialogue with the SCC rights of
way team. Membership of the
Sheffield LAF, Eastern Moors
Partnership stakeholders group,
Blackamoor Advisory group and
Sheffield Moors Partnership.
As above
Young Families and the elderly.
We are exclusively involved
with mountain bikers.
Musicians and singers attending
and listeners .
Teenagers and
the socially
isolated.People
from Lower
Stannington
We have built a
number of trails
which are open to
all users free of
charge. A diverse
group of people
utilise these trails
but we would be
keen to see more
representatives
from ethnic
minorities and
socially deprived
communities.
The local
population
Not applicable
No
the event is
publicised
nationally
Prepared for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership by Waymark Interpretation LLP

Community Engagement Survey, Feb 2018
takes place in lovcal pubs and
village halls
Stannington &
District Library
Group
(STAND) and
Stannington
Carnival
Organisers and
Festival
Friends
(SCOFF)
STAND's mission is to provide a
sustainable library service and
community hub for the people of
Stannington and the surrounding
district, encouraging participation
by everyone and innovative use of
the building as well as promoting
lifelong learning, social and digital
inclusion, and the celebration of
reading.
SCOFF 's aims are to:
(i) Organise an annual Carnival in
Stannington, in which local
organisations are encouraged to
raise funds and advertise
themselves;
(ii) Distribute profits made by the
Committee to eligible local
organisations, according to the
Committee’s rules.
The library is involved in running
Babytime, Story Time for under
5s, Tuesday Club friendship group
for people who may be socially
isolated, a writer's group, and
also supports 3 reading groups, a
Garden Club and works with
Stannington TARA to promote
reading activities and use of the
library by TARA residents.
SCOFF is not involved in other
projects but raises money to
benefit them and also works
closely with Action For
Stannington in running the annual
Carnival.
residents of Stannington and
the surrounding district.
Stannington
TARA residents
who are a bit out
on a limb, not
officially
recognised as
being part of
Stannington
while being their
closest township
- bit of a social
divide.
Young adult
readers
Older people - -
we would like to
do more to
encourage
healthy activities
and social
participation
No
Prepared for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership by Waymark Interpretation LLP

Community Engagement Survey, Feb 2018
Greave House
Farm Trust
Norfolk Arms
Ringinglow
Walking Group
Sheffield
Environmental
Movement
(SEM)
We are a Care Farm affiliated to
Care Farming UK. We provide
supported activities to adults with
learning disabilities and autism and
provide volunteering
oppoprtunities to local people. We
have a small organic vegetable
garden, orchard and fruit garden
plus a few animals. We aim to be
inclusive and welcoming to all who
are interested in getting involved
and want to be as flexible as
possible in developing projects that
individual volunteers are interested
in.
To encourage and offer people the
opportunity to enjoy the physical
and mental benefits of walking
whilst mixing with like-minded
people in the beautiful countryside
which surrounds us.
To promote opportunities for
access and participation for people
from Black, Ethnic Minority &
Refugee (BAMER) communities in
the natural environment for health
and wellbeing.
We provide volunteering
oportunities to local people who
want to develop our food growing
and animal care. We also have
young volunteers undertaking
their D ofE awards
We provide visits and resources to
local Cubs and Beavers in order
for them to complete certain
badges.
We provide basic camping for
Duke of Edinburgh expeditioners.
We hold coffee mornings and
open days to encourage local
people to come and see what we
do and how they can be involved.
We arrange regular walks in the
area.
The Sheffield Environmental
Movement (SEM) has been
involved in the Open Air
Laboratory (OPAL) Explore Nature
Citizen Science project with
community groups to raise
awareness about their local
environments from participating
in OPAL field surveys. SEM has
been promoting guided
health/historical walks for BAMER
people in local green spaces and
the countryside such as the Peak
District National Park. SEM has
also been promoting
environmental heritage among
BAMER communities in the terms
of the built, cultural and natural
environment. SEM has also been
promoting environmental
photography/pottery, as well as
taster horse riding and coarse
fishing sessions for BAMER people
as well as escorted Farm
3 young adults with learning
disabilities or autism and 8
regular volunteers plus others
on a monthly work day
Local people with time on their
hands! Over 50% of the
audience are retired, or semiretired.
Our main audiences are people
from lower socio-economic
groups specifically BAMER
Adults with
learning
disabilities and
more local
residents wanting
to help grow
food.
Younger people,
who might prefer
guided walks to
walking on their
own.
SEM would seek
to continue to
engage more
with these groups
as well as other
lower
socioeconomic
groups
not really
No
Yes, SEM has
carried out
community
wide research
among BAMER
community
groups and
organisations
as part of its
Business Plan.
it has also
been
approached by
research
bodies such as
the New
Economics
Foundation in
London which
is undertaking
research on
wellbeing and
green spaces.
Prepared for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership by Waymark Interpretation LLP

Community Engagement Survey, Feb 2018
visits/residential at Whirlowhall
Farm.
South
Yorkshire
Industrial
History Society
/ Hunter
Archaeological
Society
loxley valley
protection
society
Sheffield
FridayNightRid
e
Bolsterstone
Archaeology
and Heritage
Group
Public education in aspects of the
history and archaeology of the
region.
Encourage involvement.
To support & pass on info on
planning applications that may
effect /interest various individuals
& groups. Network with umbrella
orgs.
promote cycling, city and
companionship. Have over 90 rides
written up with maps. e.g Riding
the Sheffield Flood. Field and town
enclosures in Sheffield and the
Loxley Valley.
To inform and involve the local
community in learning about the
heritage of the area.
Both organisations hold public
lectures on a regular basis and
publish works on archaeology and
industrial history.
SYIHS is involved with the
operation of Wortley Top Forge.
None as such
worked with local historians, food
banks and artists. www.
sfnr.org.uk
Arranging talks about local
projects and visits to sites, to
increase people's awareness of
their heritage. Individual projects
involving fieldwalking and using
the archaeological finds to train
others in recording, identifying
and drawing finds. Walkover
surveys and site recording on
Whitwell Moors. Excavation would
be an option where possible; the
group was formed around an
excavation of Bolsterstone 'castle'
so has some experience.
We will target anyone but, like
any organisations of our kind,
we find that it is the white
middle aged, middle classes
who turn up..... if one is
allowed to say that!
PLANNERS ,planning committee
members & LOCAL COMMUNITY
currently white middle class
people on bikes!
Those already with some
interest in heritage.
Younger people
and families with
children.
Younger people
taking an interest
in the issues.
don't mind. Lycra
not required. Any
bike, whatever
the type...
welcome
Others who
would like to
learn more about
their heritage and
help with
research or
practical
activities, and
secondary school
students
considering
archaeology as a
career.
Not directly,
but we do
have close
contact with
other groups
who do have
these
objectives.
NO
no
Prepared for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership by Waymark Interpretation LLP

Community Engagement Survey, Feb 2018
Underbank
Community Art
Group,
Stannington
Action for
Stannington
To provide a venue to folk living in
the area which is based on, but not
solely concerned with art, learning
through each other and
sometimes, through the knowledge
of visiting experts . (Many of our
members, who are currently aged
between 60 and 95, paint pictures
of the surrounding area.)( We
meet each Wednesday morning.)
We also aim to be a community
resource where folk can socialise
and enjoy each other's company.
The Action for Stannington
volunteers provide a regular
presence in the Bradfield Parish
area, removing litter and reporting
instances of fly tipping.
Country lanes and footpaths are
regularly visited.
We also promote household
recycling, through the
establishment of two recycling
points in Low Bradfield car park
and Stannington Library car park.
We hold two art shows a year,
which are advertised locally and
are for EVERYONE in the area to
enjoy. We provide tea and cakes
at the May Art Show. We have
been part of Stannington Carnival
for years and sell pictures and
greetings cards, for small
amounts, at this event. It is
always very popular with visitors
to the show.
Beside the removal of signs of
degradation, the volunteers
contribute to the upkeep of
Stannington Park and the
Stannington War Memorial.
Two church grounds (Underbank
Chapel and Knowle Top,
Stannington) are serviced by the
volunteers during the summer
months.
We distribute over 120,000
doggie bags each year, via five
outlet in Stannington, Loxley and
Bradfield, to promote the "Good
dog Scheme". Three additional
outlets in Worrall, Oughtibridge
and Wharncliffe Side are soon to
join.
Users: Anyone who lives in the
area.Audience: Anyone who
cares to visit us at the shows
and pops in to see what we do.
Local hikers have been known
to drop in on a adhoc basis on
Wednesday morning at
Underbank Chapel schoolroom,
Stopes Rd.,/Stannington Rd
junction and are made very
welcome. We are a friendly
bunch.
Local residents with a desire to
contribute to a better
environment.
Younger adults.
As we meet on
Wednesday
mornings,
younger adults
are often
working, but they
would be
welcome,
providing we can
find room for
them. We have
considered
having an
affiliated evening
art group for
those who work
but are not sure
how to go about
it. Underbank
schoolroom
certainly has
evening slots that
could be used.
Visitors to the
area, who come
for recreational
purposes.
Not
specifically.
No
Prepared for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership by Waymark Interpretation LLP

Community Engagement Survey, Feb 2018
Stocksbridge
Walkers are
Welcome
• to develop Stocksbridge as a
"Walkers are Welcome" area • to
encourage recreational walking in
the Stocksbridge area for the
benefit of both local people and
visitors• to work to improve
facilities for walkers.• to promote
and take part in local walking
festivals• to act in partnership with
the community, business, relevant
groups, minor and major
authorities to achieve these aims
We are involved in the following,
annually providing guided walks
for each project:• EPIP Outdoors
Walking Festival• Heritage Open
Days• Sheffield Walking
FestivalWe provide copy for a
local quarterly publication,
‘Hunshelf Chat.’During 2017, the
Sheffield Telegraph featured our
walks on over 30 occasions. Each
full-page description included a
link to our website. The Telegraph
have continued to feature our
walks in 2018.
Our main audience are walkers
who wish to walk in the local
area. Website statistics indicate
a growing number of users. We
established our website in
2012. Since then, use has
steadily grown. 2017 saw:•
22341 website visitors• ten
months in 2017 recorded their
highest monthly total • 2806
(April 2017) was the highest
monthly total ever. This
coincided with the Tour de
YorkshireThe number of
participants on our organised
walks, the increasing number
of Facebook ‘friends’ and hits
on our website all indicate an
increasing interest in our area
with greater numbers of
visitors. This increase will have
a local positive effect for local
retail outlets. We have had
many examples of positive
feedback to our
website.Stocksbridge originally
developed as a ‘steel-town’ in
the C19th. We believe it has
now become the new ‘go-to’
place for recreational walking.
The countryside is open, the
walks are varied, clear
instructions exist and the area
is relatively unspoilt. The area
is even featured on the cover of
the local OS map (the run-off
at Broomhead Reservoir).
We engage with
various groups
with similar
objectives.
No
Prepared for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership by Waymark Interpretation LLP

Community Engagement Survey
Comment on local issues.
organisation issues SLLP should avoid issues SLLP could help address Any other thoughts?
Wild at Heart Project - Sheffield &
Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Rambles
no - but to build on exisiting
organisations experience and
knowledge.
Cooperation is vital in any
strategy and contributors should
work together and not pursue
their own agendas.
Commisioning of regular community
activities which connect people with
the natural world
Making sure all contributors work
towards a communal goal.
Bradfield Walkers are Welcome Unable to comment...... I'm beating the drum on behalf of
local on the ground organisations
Sheffield Environmental Movement (SEM) Avoid exclusion of people at the Consult and provide adequate
grassroots who are not normally funding for smaller charities or
consulted when it comes to include them in your funding
creating community engagement proposal so that you can become
strategy. Secondly when people sustainable in order to provide them
at the grassroots have been with the security and resources to
consulted avoid the practice of contribute and work with SLLP to
excluding their views, opinions achieve its goals
and suggestions, instead value
these and get them involved in
the implementation process of
any community engagement
strategy.
The need to recognise, and use, the
strengths and experience of contributors. In
some cases it may mean approaching these
groups.
to be discussed
SEM will welcome working with the SLLP to
help contribute to addressing community
engagement issues with people from lower
socio-economic groups specifically BAMER
Stannington & District Library Group
(STAND) and Stannington Carnival
Organisers and Festival Friends (SCOFF)
some people would say avoid
politics but i wouldn't. Avoid
party politics but not issues that
are political - tackle these head
on even if they are dynamite,
like loss of European social
funding after Brexit, or
alternative land use, land
banking, building on green belt,
lack of affordable housing,
impact of austerity policies on
engagement with healthy
activities and the great outdoors.
worries about the council's flood
protection strategy
worries about building on green belt
land
worries about the council's contract
with Amey which means chopping
trees down and not listening to any
views of the public except cherry
picked ones that support them.
lack of community transport that is
affordable for the people that need
it most as without transport they
can't get to the countryside
the library can help promote engagement
activities and we can put notices up or host
a small exhibition (we have little space but
do have some display boards) or host an
event.
Online Survey conducted for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership by Waymark Interpretation, Feb 2018

Bradfield Traditional Music Weekend
Greave House Farm Trust
Norfolk Arms Ringinglow Walking Group
Community Engagement Survey
Comment on local issues.
Yes listen to people who live within
the SLLP rather than visitors
There are plans to develop resources and
activities in Oxley Park in Stocksbridge
which would be a good way of getting
people involved.
The new path around Morehall Reserviour
has increased the number of walkers due to
better access.
People need to feel they have a vested
interest in the countryside.
I am not certain that our organisation fits in
to the criteria that you are looking for, but
as our walks often take place at Redmires,
Wyming Brook, Porter, Limb and Rivelin
Valleys, as well as the Bradfield Reservoirs, I
thought that it might have some relevance.
Sheffield Environmental Movement (SEM)
South Yorkshire Industrial History Society
/ Hunter Archaeological Society
Stocksbridge Walkers are Welcome
Yes, avoid using lower socioeconomics
as just only subjects
for research instead of involving
them in the entire research
process towards any strategy
that advocates to promote
opportunities for positive
community engagement that is
inclusive and diverse
Can't think of any
Duplication of effort. Our area of
expertise is recreational walking.
We have written almost forty
sets of detailed instructions in
the local area. These are freely
available as downloadable .pdf
files from our website.
SLLP should write into funding bids
charities working directly in
communities so that they can be
provide with sustainable funding
that can be used to assist the SLLP
achieve its outcomes and goals in
relation to successful community
engagement
Make people aware of what they are
looking at.
Dogs worrying sheep.
Share good practice and enable
others to build their capacity to
identify and adopt good practice.
SEM would welcome involvement in the
SLLP's work provided it can be provided with
funding to support it undertake this work
with communities
Are you involved with the Flood Prevention
work? Rewilding the moorland is going to
be a lot more useful than a few concrete
barriers through the city.
Are there grouse moors in the area? Do they
prevent access.
We have requested a session with your
consultant at the event on 31st.January -
ideally between 16:00 and 17:00.
We would appreciate acknowledgement of
the receipt of this document.
Online Survey conducted for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership by Waymark Interpretation, Feb 2018

Bolsters tone Archaeology and Heritage
Group
Community Engagement Survey
Comment on local issues.
Help with publicity and recruitment
to the group and to identify hard to
reach people.
Whatever is done needs to be sustainable
with very limited financial and human
resources.
Action for Stannington No No At Action for Stannington, our role would
continue in ensuring that the wider
countryside is clean, green and safe. It's a
humble job, yet it makes a big difference in
showcasing our area. Visitors to the area
cannot fail to notice the absence (or limited
amount) of litter, making the Bradfield
Parish area an attractive short break and/or
holiday destination.
Sheffield FridayNightRide
there are conflicts of interest
that exist. Increasing access isn't
what everyone wants or isn't
suitable in all places.
"community" is a meaningless
word at the end of the day.
you need to inform people. People
need encouragement. Kids don't
know what they want unless you
expose them to it. Should
everything be made really
comfortable and 'fun'? Sometimes
challenging it good. They needed to
be 'satisfied' not entertained.
Duke of Edinburgh schemes - join up with
organisations that do that sort of thing.
Online Survey conducted for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership by Waymark Interpretation, Feb 2018

Appendix 19 - A Green future: our 25 year plan to improve the
environment
Summary of government targets in the 25 year environment plan, updated 1
February 2018:
“We want to improve the UK’s air and water quality and protect our many threatened plants,
trees and wildlife species.
Our environment plan sets out our goals for improving the environment within a generation
and leaving it in a better state than we found it. It details how we in government will work
with communities and businesses to do this.
This part of the document summarises the goals and targets for each of the environmental
benefits and pressures we have identified.
We will achieve clean air by:
meeting legally binding targets to reduce emissions of five damaging air pollutants; this
should halve the effects of air pollution on health by 2030
ending the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040
maintaining the continuous improvement in industrial emissions by building on existing good
practice and the successful regulatory framework
We will achieve clean and plentiful water by improving at least three quarters of our
waters to be close to their natural state as soon as is practicable by:
reducing the damaging abstraction of water from rivers and groundwater, ensuring that by
2021 the proportion of water bodies with enough water to support environmental standards
increases from 82% to 90% for surface water bodies and from 72% to 77% for groundwater
bodies
reaching or exceeding objectives for rivers, lakes, coastal and ground waters that are
specially protected, whether for biodiversity or drinking water as per our River Basin
Management Plans
supporting OFWAT’s ambitions on leakage, minimising the amount of water lost through
leakage year on year, with water companies expected to reduce leakage by at least an
average of 15% by 2025
minimising by 2030 the harmful bacteria in our designated bathing waters and continuing to
improve the cleanliness of our waters; we will make sure that potential bathers are warned of
any short-term pollution risks

We will achieve a growing and resilient network of land, water and sea that is richer
in plants and wildlife.
On land and in freshwaters, we will do this by:
restoring 75% of our one million hectares of terrestrial and freshwater protected sites to
favourable condition, securing their wildlife value for the long term
creating or restoring 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat outside the protected site
network, focusing on priority habitats as part of a wider set of land management changes
providing extensive benefits
taking action to recover threatened, iconic or economically important species of animals,
plants and fungi, and where possible to prevent human induced extinction or loss of known
threatened species in England and the Overseas Territories
increasing woodland in England in line with our aspiration of 12% cover by 2060: this would
involve planting 180,000 hectares by end of 2042
We will reduce the risk of harm to people, the environment and the economy from
natural hazards including flooding, drought and coastal erosion by:
making sure everyone is able to access the information they need to assess any risks to
their lives and livelihoods, health and prosperity posed by flooding and coastal erosion
bringing the public, private and third sectors together to work with communities and
individuals to reduce the risk of harm
making sure that decisions on land use, including development, reflect the level of current
and future flood risk
ensuring interruptions to water supplies are minimised during prolonged dry weather and
drought
boosting the long-term resilience of our homes, businesses and infrastructure
We will ensure that resources from nature, such as food, fish and timber, are
used more sustainably and efficiently. We will do this by:
maximising the value and benefits we get from our resources, doubling resource productivity
by 2050
improving our approach to soil management: by 2030 we want all of England’s soils to be
managed sustainably, and we will use natural capital thinking to develop appropriate soil
metrics and management approaches
increasing timber supplies
ensuring that all fish stocks are recovered to and maintained at levels that can produce their
maximum sustainable yield
ensuring that food is produced sustainably and profitably

We will conserve and enhance the beauty of our natural environment, and make
sure it can be enjoyed, used by and cared for by everyone. We will do this by:
safeguarding and enhancing the beauty of our natural scenery and improving its
environmental value while being sensitive to considerations of its heritage.
making sure that there are high quality, accessible, natural spaces close to where people
live and work, particularly in urban areas, and encouraging more people to spend time in
them to benefit their health and wellbeing
focusing on increasing action to improve the environment from all sectors of society
We will take all possible action to mitigate climate change, while adapting to reduce
its impact. We will do this by:
continuing to cut greenhouse gas emissions including from land use, land use change, the
agriculture and waste sectors and the use of fluorinated gases
making sure that all policies, programmes and investment decisions take into account the
possible extent of climate change this century
implementing a sustainable and effective second National Adaptation Programme
We will minimise waste, reuse materials as much as we can and manage materials
at the end of their life to minimise the impact on the environment. We will do this by:
working towards our ambition of zero avoidable waste by 2050
working to a target of eliminating avoidable plastic waste by end of 2042
meeting all existing waste targets – including those on landfill, reuse and recycling – and
developing ambitious new future targets and milestones
seeking to eliminate waste crime and illegal waste sites over the lifetime of this Plan,
prioritising those of highest risk. Delivering a substantial reduction in litter and littering
behaviour.
significantly reducing and where possible preventing all kinds of marine plastic pollution – in
particular material that came originally from land
We will make sure that chemicals are safely used and managed, and that the
levels of harmful chemicals entering the environment (including through agriculture)
are significantly reduced. We will do this by:
seeking in particular to eliminate the use of Polychlorinated Biphenyls by 2025, in line with
our commitments under the Stockholm Convention
reducing land-based emissions of mercury to air and water by 50% by 2030
substantially increasing the amount of Persistent Organic Pollutants material being
destroyed or irreversibly transformed by 2030, to make sure there are negligible emissions
to the environment

fulfilling our commitments under the Stockholm Convention as outlined in the UK’s most
recent National Implementation Plan
We will enhance biosecurity to protect our wildlife and livestock, and boost the
resilience of plants and trees. We will do this by: managing and reducing the impact
of existing plant and animal diseases; lowering the risk of new ones and tackling
invasive non-native species
reaching the detailed goals to be set out in the Tree Health Resilience Plan of 2018
ensuring strong biosecurity protection at our borders, drawing on the opportunities leaving
the EU provides
working with industry to reduce the impact of endemic disease.”
----------------
In addition to the 25 year plan, the government published, in October 2017, a Clean Growth
strategy. This included, amongst other sections, one on “Enhancing the benefits and value
of our natural resources” – (which produce 15% of UK carbon emissions).
The main headings in this section are:.
38) As we leave the EU, design a new system of future agricultural support to focus on
delivering better environmental outcomes, including addressing climate change more directly
39) Establish a new network of forests in England including new woodland on farmland, and
fund larger-scale woodland and forest creation, in support of our commitment to plant 11
million trees, and increase the amount of UK timber used in construction
40) Work towards our ambition for zero avoidable waste by 2050, maximising the value we
extract from our resources, and minimising the negative environmental and carbon impacts
associated with their extraction, use and disposal
41) Publish a new Resources and Waste Strategy to make the UK a world leader in terms of
competitiveness, resource productivity and resource efficiency
42) Explore new and innovative ways to manage emissions from landfill
43) Support peatland through a £10 million capital grant scheme for peat restoration
44) Innovation: Invest £99 million in innovative technology and research for agri-tech, land
use, greenhouse gas removal technologies, waste and resource efficiency
Sources: Defra report “A green future, January 2018. Commons Briefing papers CBP-8196
January 2018. Dept for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, “Clean Growth Strategy”,
Oct 2017.

Appendix 9
Working with Volunteers
Advice Note

Appendix 17
Working with Volunteers
Thoughts on Best Practice
The challenge for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership is to extend the number and diversity of
volunteer groups working on projects during the delivery phase.
We have undertaken some desk research to identify best practice and resources to develop and
work with volunteers.
Having spoken to those running projects it is clear that they are familiar with working with
volunteers, but even so we recommend that they review the good practice on offer fo anything extra
that they can include to support increasing the diversity within the group.
The Sheffield Volunteer Centre
The Sheffield Volunteer Centre has web based information on good practice that project leaders
should be encouraged to review.
http://www.sheffieldvolunteercentre.org.uk/good-practice-resources
In particular, there is a section on involving refugees & asylum seeker volunteers
http://www.sheffieldvolunteercentre.org.uk/involving-refugees-asylum-seeker-volunteers
Summary of information:
Refugees and asylum seekers can
Bring unique skills and experience – some are highly skilled professionals.
Help you to engage with the refugee communities.
Increase the diversity of your organisation.
Enhance your awareness of other cultures.
Is it more work?
There is huge diversity amongst refugees and asylum seekers. Some speak fluent English and can be
trained up quickly to do the role you need them for, whereas others may not have worked in their
home country, will only have basic English and may take longer to train and need more support.
Staff on the New Beginnings project at the Volunteer can give advice on involving refugees and help
identify people who will be suitable for your role.
Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Excerpts from Community Impact Bucks, Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers (see attached
pdf)
PREPARED FOR SHEFFIELD LAKELAND BY WAYMARK INTERPRETATION, P1

Appendix 17
The 27 Best Practices of High Performing Volunteer Organizations
Mitch Ditkoff in Huffington Post – full article at https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitch-ditkoff/bestpractices-volunteer-organizations_b_2624967.html
Executive summary
….many volunteer organizations, in various unconscious ways, sabotage the value their volunteers
bring to the table. Whether it’s bad management, poor communication, or the inability to
acknowledge people for their efforts… The result? Volunteers back off, quit, or grumble about the
organization.
…informal research on the subject - identified 27 best practices that high performing volunteer
organizations abide by.
1. Clearly (and often) communicate the vision.
2. Provide clearly written job descriptions.
3. Take the time to authentically welcome volunteers and orient them to their new role.
4. Ensure that volunteers know exactly what’s expected of them.
5. Start new volunteers off small. Don’t scare them off with too huge of a commitment too
soon.
6. Keep the workloads manageable.
7. Communicate progress being made on a regular basis. Volunteers need to see that their
efforts are having impact.
PREPARED FOR SHEFFIELD LAKELAND BY WAYMARK INTERPRETATION, P2

Appendix 17
8. When there are setbacks or breakdowns, learn from them — and share your learnings with
others.
9. Be prepared so you don’t waste people’s time.
10. Create a trusting environment that ensures open communication, teamwork, and respect for
diversity.
11. Keep everyone on your team informed of the inevitable changes (i.e. direction, policy,
timelines, goals, personnel etc.)
12. Provide opportunities for volunteers to switch to different roles they might find more
enjoyable.
13. Give and receive feedback (both formally and informally).
14. Provide opportunities for volunteers to learn and grow.
15. Honor your commitments (and if, for any reason, you cannot — renegotiate them with
volunteers).
16. Give volunteers the opportunity to take breaks from the project.
17. Make sure volunteers know they can say “no” if they are overextended or overwhelmed.
18. Enthusiastically acknowledge successes, especially “small wins”).
19. Be kind and respectful in all your interactions.
20. Do your best to make sure everyone is enjoying the process of participating.
21. Respond to input, questions, and feedback as soon as possible. Don’t leave people hanging.
22. Build some interpersonal chat time into your meetings and conference calls.
23. Teach volunteers, in leadership positions, how to delegate.
24. Even when you are stressed or behind deadline, take the time to make sure your emails
have a feeling of warmth to them
25. Fill out Project Briefs on all projects you are inviting volunteer participation — and share
them with volunteers.
26. Conduct exit interviews whenever a volunteer ends their participation or is asked to step
aside.
27. Share your learnings from the exit interviews with other managers.
28. Follow the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
PREPARED FOR SHEFFIELD LAKELAND BY WAYMARK INTERPRETATION, P3

Appendix 10
CIB Working with Volunteers
Good Practice Guide

Voluntary Sector Support
Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
www.communityimpactbucks.org.uk Community Impact Bucks is a registered charity no:1070267 company no: 3508718

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Contents
Introduction 3
What Do Volunteer Centres Do? 4
What Is Volunteering? 6
Why Involve Volunteers? 7
Why Do People Volunteer? 9
What Do You Want Volunteers to Do? 11
Getting Volunteers On Board 14
Selection and Screening 16
Induction and Training 21
Volunteer Expenses 29
Recognition of your Volunteers 30
Keeping Volunteers Motivated 31
Dealing with Problems 32
Saying Goodbye 35
Further support 36
Page 2

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Introduction
These guidelines are intended to assist
organisations with the effective
management of volunteers. Good
practice does not require any specialist
knowledge. It mostly involves common
sense and the imaginative ability to put
yourself in the position of a volunteer.
How would you like to be treated? Are
you made to feel welcome and useful?
The recruitment and management of
volunteers is not dissimilar to the
recruitment and management of staff, but
unlike paid staff, volunteers have no
reason to stay if they do not enjoy their
work, so it is important that they are
managed well. One bad experience can
put people off volunteering, sometimes
permanently.
Therefore, the aim of this Good Practice
Guide is to give you some simple
guidelines, and practical suggestions
which will help you to attract, involve and
support volunteers effectively, and have
an exit strategy when they move on.
If we can be of further assistance you can
contact us:-
Community Impact Bucks
• Helpline: 0845 389 0389
• Email:
volunteering@communityimpactbucks.org.uk
• Website:
www.communityimpactbucks.org.uk
Very few organisations can afford to
employ a dedicated volunteer manager.
In most organisations, particularly small
ones, the person responsible for
volunteers combines this with many
other roles. Some people who take on
this role are themselves volunteers.
Page 3

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
What do Volunteer Centre’s do?
Community Impact Bucks runs
the Volunteer Centre for
Buckinghamshire and provides
support at a local level for
individual volunteers and
volunteer involving
organisations.
To help your organisation we
offer:
1. Brokerage
To match both individuals and groups
interested in volunteering with
appropriate opportunities in the local
community. They hold information on a
comprehensive range of opportunities,
and offer potential volunteers support and
advice matching their motivation to
volunteer with appropriate volunteering
opportunities.
Community Impact Bucks have a
volunteering brokerage coordinator who
can help you (see page 5 for contact
details).
2. Marketing Volunteering
To stimulate and encourage local interest
in volunteering and community activity.
This may include promoting and
marketing volunteering through local,
regional and national events and
campaigns. We do this through the do-it
website (www.do-it.org.uk) and regular
columns in the local press.
3. Good Practice
Development
To promote good practice in working
with volunteers to all volunteer-involving
organisations, including training for
potential volunteers, existing volunteers,
volunteer managers and the volunteering
infrastructure.
4. Develop Volunteering
Opportunities
To work in close partnership with
statutory, voluntary and private sector
agencies as well as community groups
and faith groups to develop local
volunteering opportunities. Target specific
groups which face barriers to
volunteering. Volunteer Centres work
creatively to develop imaginative, formal
and non-formal opportunities for
potential volunteers.
Page 4

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
5. Policy Response and Campaigning
To identify proposals or legislation that may impact on volunteering; to lead and/or
participate in campaigns on issues that affect volunteers or volunteering; and to
campaign proactively for a more volunteer-literate and volunteer-friendly climate.
6. Strategic Development of Volunteering
We also offer volunteer services and projects such as:
• Expert Volunteers
• Employee Volunteering – Volunteer Workout
• Supported Volunteering- Opportunities For all
Further information on any of the above can be found on our web site:
www.communityimpactbucks.org.uk or by
e mail: volunteering@communityimpactbucks.org.uk or telephone 0845 389 0389.
Page 5

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
What is volunteering?
Volunteering is defined in the
Compact Volunteering Code of
Good Practice as:
An activity that involves spending
time, unpaid, doing something
that aims to benefit the
environment or individuals or
groups other than (or in addition
to) close relatives.
There are four principles
fundamental to volunteering:
Choice, Diversity, Mutual
Benefit and Recognition
Choice:
Volunteering must be a choice freely
made by each individual. Freedom to
volunteer implies freedom not to become
involved.
Mutual Benefit:
Volunteers offer their contribution
unwaged but should benefit in other ways
in return for their contribution. Giving
voluntary time and skills must be
recognised as establishing a reciprocal
relationship in which the volunteer also
benefits and feels that his or her
contribution is personally fulfilling.
Recognition:
Explicit recognition of the value of the
contribution of volunteers is fundamental
to a fair relationship between volunteers,
voluntary and community organisations
and government policy and practice. This
includes recognising the contribution to
the organisation and the community.
Diversity:
Volunteering should be open to all, no
matter what their background, race,
nationality, religion, ethnic or national
origins, age gender, marital status, sexual
orientation or disability.
Page 6

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Why involve volunteers?
Although volunteers are not paid for their
time, they are not just a free gift.
Involving volunteers takes resources such
as the time to recruit, manage and
support them; space and equipment; and
the cost of reimbursing out-of-pocket
expenses. A better way to think of
volunteers is that they are an investment –
although you do need to invest time and
resources, it will yield rewards in the long
term.
Good reasons to involve
volunteers might include:
• To enable your organisation to offer
more support or services to your
users;
• To widen participation or involve more
diverse groups of people, or allow
channels for more local input.
Volunteers can bring with them a
different perspective to an organisation
- one that reflects the views of the
community or client group;
• For their energy and enthusiasm;
• They have a different relationship with
your users, knowing they are there
because they want to be not just
because it is their job;
• Volunteers can bring a variety of
skills, experience and enthusiasm that
may otherwise be unavailable to
them;
• Volunteers can add credibility to an
organisation – giving their time free of
charge suggests that they are supportive
of the aims and services provided by
your organisation.
Not-so-good reasons to
want volunteers might
include:
• Doing the things no-one else wants
to do.
• Volunteers are not a substitute for
paid staff positions.
Page 7

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
The answer to this
question should:
•Clarify your reason for wanting to
involve volunteers
• Determine the roles and responsibilities
that your organisation will create for
volunteers
• Enable you to explain to volunteers
how and why their involvement
contributes to the overall aims and
objectives of the organisation
• Enable your organisation to develop
a plan for evaluating how effective the
involvement of volunteers has been
Volunteering is most
likely to work well if:
• The organisation has clear reasons for
involving volunteers that are in line
with its aims and goals and
acknowledges and recognises what
they contribute
• Trustees/managers, staff, volunteers and
users are all clear about why volunteers
are there, and committed to supporting
them
• The roles of volunteers are clearly
defined so that paid staff do not feel
undermined or threatened and
volunteers are clear about their tasks
and responsibilities
• There is an organisational culture which
values the involvement of volunteers
and makes sure it has the resources to
support them properly.
Page 8

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Why do People volunteer
Volunteering is a two way
relationship. Volunteers give
their time for free. While
altruistic motives are often
involved, individuals often also
have personal and professional
expectations of the experience.
Why should someone
volunteer with your
organisation?
People who want to volunteer have a
wide range of opportunities to choose
from, and they will choose the one which
seems to offer the best ‘fit’ to their
personal combination of motivations. It is
best to be clear from the start about what
you can offer to volunteers – and what,
realistically, you cannot offer.
Focus on what is positive about
volunteering with your organisation. What
would make them choose you, rather than
another organisation? What is special or
distinctive about volunteering with your
organisation?
Think about:
What your organisation
does
Why does your organisation exist? What is
the organisation working to achieve or
change? Who or what does it want to
help, support or empower? This is a
strong motivation for people who need to
feel strongly about a cause – and can be
more powerful than the ‘job satisfaction’
of the actual task that a volunteer is being
asked to do. Think of all the volunteers
who stand in the street with a collecting
tin! You might also want to consider:
What is distinctive or unusual about how
your organisation works to achieve its
aims? What do you do that other, similar
organisations don’t?
The development
opportunities you offer
What is interesting, exciting or
challenging about the volunteer roles that
you offer? Do you provide useful training?
Some people are looking for something
that will challenge or stretch them, or the
opportunity to take responsibility. Do you
offer the opportunity for direct contact
with your users or clients? – This is
particularly useful experience for people
seeking to explore a new career, or who
need to get work related experience.
Page 9

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Being part of your
organisation
People volunteer for a wide range of
reasons
- Some people want to develop new
skills
- Some people want to meet new people
and be part of a team
- Some people want to utilise existing
skills
- Some people might be using
volunteering to help them get
somewhere else
Below are three quotes from volunteers
working in Community Impact Bucks who
all have different reasons for giving up
their time and volunteering
“I made a speculative approach to an organisation in my village. They
suggested that I could be involved in the community Oil Buying scheme.
The work uses my existing skills and experience, the people are nice and
there is lot’s to do.”
“I ‘m recently retired, I love coming into Community Impact Bucks once a
week to support the office admin team. It enables me to keep up to date
with modern technology and to use my office skills to the benefit of the
many services they offer. It is very enjoyable.”
“Working with Community Impact Bucks I have been able to offer my
services as a qualified accountant to voluntary groups who need help
with their business planning, I am able to fit this into my busy schedule
which is brilliant and very rewarding.”
Page 10

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
What do you want volunteers to do?
It is good practice to have clear
volunteer role descriptions which set
out what volunteers can expect to do
and what you will provide to enable
them to do this. Start by listing all the
tasks which volunteers could help with,
and then group these into defined
roles. This does not have to be
inflexible; you may sometimes prefer to
work in a way that responds to what
volunteers can offer and creates a role
for them. A role description is a useful
checklist of things to consider so that
you and the volunteer are both clear
about the role and expectations.
Role description
It is helpful to give the role a title which
sums up what the volunteer will be doing
– for example ‘befriender’, ‘mentor’,
‘office assistant’
Overall Purpose of the
role
Detail the purpose of the role and list all
the tasks and responsibilities that the
volunteer will be asked to undertake.
Location
Volunteering opportunities that are boring
or unsatisfactory may lead to recruitment
difficulties and a high turnover of
volunteers. It is worth being flexible and
creating volunteering opportunities that
are what people want; interesting,
challenging and rewarding, as they attract
volunteers who will be enthusiastic and
committed.
Where will the volunteer usually be
based? If this is in the community, state
what the geographical limits of your
service are and whether volunteers can
choose to be placed close to home.
Page 11

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Responsible to
This should give name and role of the
person who will manage and support
them.
Hours/time commitment
Give an indication of how much time this
role will take up and how frequently. If
you need volunteers to be available on
specific days and times, say so. If the
hours are flexible, what are the limits of
this flexibility? E.g. ‘volunteers are asked
to commit for a regular shift of 2 hours
per week during our normal opening
times of 10-4, Monday to Thursday’. If
you are asking for long term
commitment, be specific about this, and
state the minimum you would expect. (Be
aware, though, that you cannot legally
bind volunteers to this). Do not include
unnecessary restrictions, as you may put
off potential volunteers unnecessarily – if
it is negotiable then say so.
Skills required
Recruiting volunteers tends to be inclusive
rather than competitively selective –
so only include skills/experience which is
really necessary for the role. Consider
whether you would really turn someone
down who did not have the particular skill
but who was enthusiastic. Could you train
them in some or all of the necessary skills?
You could separate this out into skills
which a volunteer must have, and skills
which would be useful (but which are not
necessary).
If you are looking for personal qualities
in your volunteer try to write it in a way
that links directly to the role. For
example, for work which involves
telling lots of people about your
organisations work you might say ‘able
to deal confidently with talking to a
wide range of people ‘rather than
‘bubbly and outgoing’.
If there are other restrictions on what
kinds of volunteers you will accept, this is
the place to say so. For example if the
project is women - or men - only,
wants volunteers who have personal
experience of the issue they will be dealing
Page 12

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
with, or if there are age restrictions. You
need to explain these and to be sure that
they are essential to the role, not
discriminatory or based on stereotypes or
prejudices about certain kinds of people,
particularly if the anti-discrimination
legislation would prevent you from using
them if you were advertising a paid job.
For example ‘volunteers must be over 18
as they need to be mature enough to
work unsupervised’ – why 18? Would you
turn down a sensible, mature 17 years old
and accept an unreliable, irresponsible 50
year old?
Benefits to the volunteer
What specific benefits will this role offer?
Think about what might motivate people
to take on this role?
The role could be of value to students
looking to enter a specific profession or
times are flexible so you can fit this round
your commitments
Training
What training and induction will
volunteers be offered and how does it
relate to their role? Is this required (they
have to do it before they start
volunteering) or is it optional? When and
how often does training take place, and
how long does it take? Is it formal,
informal or ‘on the job’? Is ongoing
training available if volunteers want to
increase their knowledge or develop their
role? Can volunteers access external
training courses?
Support and supervision
What support and supervision is offered to
volunteers and how will it be provided? Is
it formal or informal? You might want to
include opportunities for peer support
such as volunteer social events or support
sessions.
Expenses
It It is good practice to make sure that
volunteers are not out of pocket .Include
here information about what expenses are
reimbursed to volunteers.
Page 13

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Getting volunteers on board
What happens when a potential
volunteer gets in touch for the
first time?
From the volunteer’s point of view, they
are offering you a gift – they are offering
to give you their time for nothing. So if
the organisation is slow to respond,
unenthusiastic, or unwelcoming, this can
seem most ungrateful!
Bear in mind the difference between
recruiting volunteers and recruiting paid
staff. For job recruitment, the process is
usually competitive for the applicants.
There is a deadline, and there are several
candidates and the role of the recruitment
and selection process is to choose the
most suitable and reject the others.
For volunteer recruitment, this is not
generally the case – usually the process
aims to include as many people wanting
to volunteer as possible, rather than to
exclude all but one successful candidate.
In fact the competition is often the other
way around. There are many other
organisations wanting volunteers and
many other organisations for volunteers
to go to. So they are selecting you! If the
process feels too formal or too like making
a job application this can be off-putting to
some people.
This means that:
• You need to respond quickly to any
expression of interest (or at the very
least to explain and apologise for any
delay).
• The initial contact needs to be friendly,
welcoming and enthusiastic. It need not
be the person who manages volunteers
if someone else (e.g. the administrator)
is more easily available – but whoever it
is needs to be well-informed,
approachable, able to answer questions
and tell the enquirer what will happen
next.
• You need to give volunteers all the
information they need to make an
informed decision about proceeding to
the next step. The aim should be to
encourage volunteers to make the next
step and commit themselves, if they
want to do so, and to say so without
embarrassment if it is not right for
them. It may be best, initially to do this
verbally (in person or over the
telephone) rather than sending lots of
written
Page 14

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
information, giving them the opportunity
to ask questions. You can then send
written information to clarify what you
have said.
The information you need from the
volunteer should be relevant to the task
and asked for in a way that is not too offputting.
For example, asking for details
when you meet the volunteer rather than
presenting them with a 10-page
‘application form’.
• Try not to make it feel too much like a
selection process (unless this really is the
case) – for example a ‘visit’ or ‘chat’
sounds less intimidating than an
‘interview’.
• If there is a screening procedure
(references or Criminal Record Bureau
checks) then take time to explain what
is involved, what information will be
needed and why you need to do them;
and also which offences would be likely
to be unacceptable to you as it is easy
for a volunteer to think that any offence
will bar them from volunteering. Let
them know how long this is likely to
take.
• Having made the offer of help,
volunteers need to know what happens
next and to have any delays explained
to them.
Page 15

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Selection & Screening
Selecting volunteers is about finding a
good match between the prospective
volunteer and the opportunity on offer.
It is an attempt to find a successful
blend where the person has the right
skills, experience and enthusiasm and
the opportunity satisfies the needs and
interests of the volunteer.
Every year thousands of people volunteer.
Almost without exception these
volunteers are keen to give up their time
and efforts for the benefit of others
without payment. Lack of care in
accepting volunteers can, unfortunately,
lead to dissatisfaction and disappointment
for both the individual and your
organisation when a person is placed in
an inappropriate opportunity, causing the
volunteer to stop working with you and
any other organisation.
In a very small number of cases, lack of
care in selection could lead to serious
danger for the service user. Good
selection procedures recognise that the
vast majority of volunteers deserve our
best efforts to find suitable
opportunities for them, whilst at the
same time setting up careful
acceptance procedures so that a very
small minority will not be placed in
positions where vulnerable people may
be at risk.
Record keeping
However informal or short-term the
volunteer opportunity, and even if you
don’t have a formal selection or screening
process, it is wise to ask for and keep a
record of:
• The volunteer’s name and address,
with some proof of identity
• Contact details
• Details of their next-of-kin or an
emergency contact
Information about any medical conditions
or allergies which their manager and/or
colleagues might need to know about
Application/Registration
form
You might want to ask a volunteer to
complete a basic application form,
although if this is too much like a formal
job application this can be off-putting,
and some volunteers may need help to
complete it. However it does give a
potential volunteer an opportunity to tell
you something about themselves and
their reasons for volunteering, and
provide you with a basic personnel
record.
Page 16

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Interviewing Volunteers
There are a number of reasons why
organisations find it beneficial to chat
in person to potential volunteers:
• It provides you with a chance to
explain more about the work of your
organisation and how volunteers fit
into its activities.
• It gives you the opportunity to assess
the suitability of the volunteer and
enables you to make sure they have
the skills and qualities that you need,
or to match their skills most effectively
to a suitable role.
• It also gives the volunteers a chance to
decide whether your organisation is
the right one for them, thus saving
everyone’s time.
• It helps to ensure that all volunteers
are given the same opportunity to find
out about the role and to demonstrate
their suitability.
• It enables you to be clear about
induction, probationary period and
anything else which volunteers need
to be clear about before they offer
time.
Plan your meeting carefully in advance.
You need to get the right balance
between professionalism and informality,
so that the experience gives the
volunteer confidence that the
organisation is efficient and wellorganised,
but is not so intimidating that
it scares them away! A badly conducted
interview will put volunteers off. You may
also want to address, before the
interview, any fears that a volunteer has;
and to explain whether it will be a formal
selection process or just an informal chat.
Planning an interview:
• Make sure that all staff knows that a
potential volunteer is coming and
ensure that someone is available to
welcome them.
• Have any background information to
hand as the volunteer may ask you
questions.
• Have a confidential area where you
will not be interrupted and can speak
in confidence
• Draw up a list of questions in advance
based on the volunteer role
description. Remember the interview is
your main selection tool.
• Use open questions. As an interviewer
you should be doing more listening
than talking (except when giving
information). i.e. can you tell me why
you are interested in this role? Can
you tell me about any experiences you
have had related to this one?
Page 17

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
• If you are interviewing several
volunteers, you may need to take
notes. It is less intimidating if you
explain to the volunteer why you are
making notes, just in case they think
they have said something wrong.
• If you are not going to make a
decision during the interview, then tell
the volunteer when you will let them
know and whether they can get
feedback on their interview.
Remember the aim of the interview is
to match the right person with the role.
It is useful to try and find out what
motivates each volunteer and then
match this to a suitable opportunity. A
good interviewer will give the
volunteer an opportunity to ‘selfselect’,
i.e. to reject the role if they feel
it is not right for them.
References
No organisation should be satisfied
with only the information provided by
the prospective volunteer. Some form
of independent verification is essential
good practice, although not legally
required.
Some organisations ask for all references
in writing; others prefer telephone
references. It is sensible, both for practical
and equal opportunities reasons, to make
a checklist of questions to ask and to keep
a written record of points raised in
telephone references, especially if the
reference is unsatisfactory.
The questions asked, whether verbally
or in writing, should verify how long
the person has known the volunteer,
and for how long, and should ask
specific questions which relate to the
role description and required skills for
the role the volunteer will be
performing. You might also want to ask
whether the referee would have any
concerns or doubts about offering the
person this role. When asked specific
questions, it is much harder for a
referee to conceal any doubts or
concerns than it would be in a bland,
general ‘character reference’.
It is not sensible to accept, without further
investigation, written references produced
by a prospective volunteer, since the
provision of such references is frequently
a term of settlement for a contested
dismissal from paid employment. Such
references are also open to forgery.
You will need some guidelines on who
you will accept as a referee, and how
long they must have known the person.
You can always send the role
description to the referee so they have
an idea what that person will be
doing.Remember that some volunteers,
especially if they have been ill or out
of paid work for a while, or if they have
Page 18

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
recently come to the UK, may find it
difficult to suggest a referee,
particularly if they assume you expect
an employment reference. You might
have to suggest alternatives such as a
teacher, tutor, social worker, health
professional, volunteer manager or
neighbour; or be prepared to arrange
for translation of a reference from
overseas.
It is worth remembering that a high
proportion of people have a criminal
conviction of some kind. Few of them will
have any ulterior motives for wanting to
volunteer, and there is no evidence to
suggest that a volunteer with a criminal
record is any more likely to offend than a
volunteer who has not. Outright rejection
of ALL ex-offenders hugely narrows the
available volunteer base and the human
potential on offer to an organisation. You
should therefore have in place policies or
procedures which avoid excluding or
discouraging people who have committed
minor or irrelevant offences, or whose
offences were many years ago. It is good
practice to indicate that a conviction does
not necessarily disbar a volunteer from
consideration and to give an indication
of what types of conviction would disbar
a person from a particular role.
You should also remember that CRB
checks do not, in themselves, guarantee
the safety of your users – they only
identify people who have been caught
in the past. They should only be used as
one tool in a Safety Culture which takes
steps to minimise risk and risky
situations, and which gives staff,
volunteers and users the confidence to
raise concerns, knowing that they will
be taken seriously and dealt with
swiftly and effectively. But judge each
case on its merits. If someone
committed an assault ten years ago,
you have to decide whether that is
material to you now. It is your duty of
care.
Screening should not be used as a
substitute for good selection procedures.
Adequate support, training and
supervision are necessary wherever
volunteers are working with any
vulnerable group of people.
Details of CRB checks can be found via
the attached link:
www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk
Page 19

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Other Checks and
Balances
It is important to develop the best
possible procedures to ensure that your
organisation protects its clients. The
following are useful:
• Policies or statements on safeguarding
the welfare of clients, access to money
and property and other matters where
abuse, handling confidential
information, fraud or breach of trust
may occur. The work of the organisation
should be planned in a way that
minimises risks.
• All clients or service users should be
clear about how to complain to an
independent person if they are
unhappy about the actions of a
worker or volunteer. If clients are
unable to make their own complaints,
additional safeguards may be needed
to monitor workers and volunteers.
• Agreed procedures for protecting
people, property and the reputation of
the organisation should be applied to
all; and all workers/volunteers should
understand what their work involves
and the limits of their activities.
Turning a Volunteer
Down
You do not have to involve any and
every volunteer. Sometimes you will not
be able to accept someone’s offer to
volunteer. For example if you do not
have space for someone in this role at
the moment, or if there is a good
reason why you think they would not
be suitable. It is tempting just to avoid
the issue and hope that they will lose
interest, but this gives a very bad image
of your organisation and of
volunteering in general and can cause
poor moral in staff and in other
volunteers.
The best way to handle this is to let them
know quickly and explain why. Let them
know that you appreciate their offer and
be as honest as you can. It’s important to
handle this sensitively – think how
upsetting it is to be rejected after a job
interview, and how much more so when
the person is offering to work for nothing.
If possible, suggest another organisation
which might be more suitable, or refer
them to the local Volunteer Centre to
explore other options.
Page 20

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Induction and training
Training is the process of equipping
volunteers with the essential skills
needed to perform the tasks associated
with their volunteering. It should be
proportionate to the responsibilities
that a volunteer will have. Some roles
(for example giving advice, or working
with vulnerable people) may require
extensive training. Other roles may
need only a brief orientation or
induction.
In the same way, some volunteers find
training an incentive, or feel that it
demonstrates that their role is valued
whilst others just want to get on with the
job they came to do. You might want to
distinguish between offering the
opportunity for training, and making it
obligatory.
about the work of the organisation and
the issues that it is dealing with, the
opportunity to learn a new role or take on
more responsibility) – if they want to.
Remember that some volunteers
appreciate the structure and security of
volunteering – and may not want any to
change or to develop their role.
You can provide the information and
learning experiences that volunteers need
in a variety of ways, and you may want to
provide some information more than
once or at different times:
Informal/face to face
One to one induction, coaching,
supervision or support sessions, volunteer
meetings, peer support or social events
Obligatory induction or training will
cover the things that volunteers really
need to know (for example, the aims
and ethos of the organisation, what their
role involves, the policies and practices
they will be expected to abide by).
Optional training should offer the
chance for volunteers to learn more or
develop their role (for example, more
Written information
Guidelines, information pack, policy
documents, volunteer handbook, websites
Formal/structured
training
Courses, workshops, talks and lectures,
distance learning packs
Page 21

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Bear in mind that some volunteers will
have had limited or adverse experiences
of training and education in the past. You
might want to deal in advance with any
fears or preconceptions that volunteers
might have about attending training
courses or workshops.
Basic induction
guidelines
All volunteers will need an induction
or orientation into your organisation -
it gives you the ability to explain how,
why and where you operate, where
they fit in, and what will be expected of
them. It should provide them with
enough background and practical
knowledge of your organisation to
allow them to understand their
contribution; and to show a new
volunteer that they are a welcome
addition to the team.
You should aim to answer
4 basic questions:
1.Why should I be volunteering here?
2.How will I be volunteering here?
3.How do I fit in with everyone else?
4.How I will be valued? (Support,
supervision, reward)
We now go on to explain on pages
22-28 what needs to be covered to
answer these four basic questions.
1. Clearly explain the
purpose of your group
• Your mission statement and the
values of your organisation (i.e.
the purpose of the organisation
or project and what it is trying to
achieve)
• Information about your
users/clients/beneficiaries
• A brief history of the organisation
• An overview of current services,
projects or activities
• Any future plans for the
organisation’s development
The aim of this discussion is for the
volunteer to understand and commit
themselves to the basic purpose of the
organisation.
Page 22

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
2. Clarify how volunteers fit
into this.
• An explanation of where volunteers fit
into the structure of the organisation,
and how they help it to achieve its
objectives
• The policies and procedures they will be
expected to abide by, and the
boundaries of their role.
• A introduction to any facilities, premises
and equipment they will be using
• A description of the expectations that
the organisation has of a volunteer, and
what they can expect from the
organisation
The purpose of this is to allow the
volunteer to understand where they fit
into the bigger picture, and to help them
find their way around.
3. Set out the social context
in which the volunteer will be
working.
Included in this section is:
• An introduction to the leadership and
structure of the organisation
• A welcoming by staff and current
volunteers
• A personal introduction to key staff and
other volunteers, particularly those who
will be working with or managing them
• A description of the values and ethos of
the organisation.This might be the place
to cover in more details policies such as
equal opportunities and confidentiality,
and to clarify how volunteers will be
expected to behave towards users and
colleagues, as a representative of the
organisation
This allows volunteers to make personal
connections that will help to sustain
involvement, and to feel comfortable
and confident in their interactions with
other people.
Page 23

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
4. Support and Supervision
Good support and supervision is about
finding an effective balance between the
needs of the volunteer and the needs of
the organisation. Each volunteer needs to
have a named supervisor or manager who
is their primary person for support and
supervision. Because volunteers
are not paid, they will stay only if they feel
enthusiastic and motivated. The
organisation needs to make sure
volunteers’ energy and enthusiasm is
harnessed effectively to benefit the
organisation.
SUPPORT is largely about
encouragement and
reassurance to the person:
• To focus on the volunteer as a person.
• To listen, and create an environment
where a volunteer is able to express
him/her self.
• To reassure where necessary.
• To make sure the volunteer feels that
their work is valued
• To be alert to possible changes or
personal issues affecting the volunteer
• To give (and receive) feedback, both
positive and negative – support does
not exclude constructive criticism
• To pick up on any concerns or
problems the volunteer has with their
work and deal with them before they
become more serious
• To assess training needs and facilitate
personal development
SUPERVISION is largely concerned with
the tasks being done by the volunteer,
and encouraging the person to be most
effective in their volunteering role:
• To evaluate progress, set objectives
and agree future action plans
• To give guidance in work based tasks
• To address any problems early and
deal with them in a constructive way
• To make sure the organisation is
accountable for the work being done
• To provide a forum for discussion,
clarifying priorities, enabling decision
making and agreeing on change
The balance between support or
supervision, the level of supervision,
and how closely you manage any
particular volunteer, will depend on
many factors, such as:
Page 24

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
• How experienced the volunteer is and
how long they have been with you
• The role of the volunteer and the level
of responsibility they have
• The potential for things to go wrong
(and how serious the problems could
be)
• Whether they are doing work that
needs to be monitored or which has to
meet organisational targets
• The personal circumstances of the
volunteer
• How often you are in contact with the
volunteer and whether this contact is
in person or by telephone, e-mail or
post
• What type of work they do and where
(on-site, at a distance or in the
community)
• How a volunteer currently feels about
their role, other volunteers and staff,
and whether there are any issues of
concern
• The methods you use to supervise staff
doing similar work
It may vary from person to person
(some volunteers will come with more
confidence or experience than others
and some may need more
encouragement or reassurance) and
may change over time (e.g. as
volunteers become more experienced,
take on new roles, or if their personal
circumstances change)
Volunteers are more likely to feel valued,
accepted and satisfied with their roles if
your agency provides adequate support.
In its various forms, support helps to
provide an opportunity to offload
problems, gain feedback and learn from
the experience of other volunteers and
paid staff.
Well supported volunteers will find it
easier to cope with their task and provide
a better service, with the added benefits
for your agency and possible clients.
Which support?
Methods of support for volunteers vary
from one agency to the next. However,
some of the most frequently used are:
• open door - where the volunteer cocoordinator
is always available to
volunteers
• regular telephone calls or e-mails
volunteers - especially for volunteers
who work away from the agency
• Specific session times when the
co-coordinator is available to
volunteers
Page 25

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
• Regular, one-to-one supervision
sessions
• Meetings of staff and volunteers
• Meetings solely for volunteers
• A volunteer newsletter or notice
board
• Regular social or training events
Each of these methods has their own
merits and pitfalls. For example:
■ An open door policy is very convenient
for the volunteer, but makes it difficult
for the co-coordinator to time-manage
effectively, and may mean that a few
vocal volunteers dominate your time.
Other volunteers may be concerned not
to ‘bother’ you, and you may not
become aware of problems until it is
too late
■ Specific session times allow more
structured control of the cocoordinators
time and may help you to
focus on the task rather than trying to
juggle volunteer support with other
priorities. However the times may need
to vary to fit in with volunteers’
schedules. Problems can arise if several
volunteers arrive at the same time.
■ Group meetings allow volunteers to
share ideas and opinions, but can be
dominated by a minority and not be
appropriate for volunteers who have
individual or personal issues to raise, or
who do not feel confident to speak up
in public.
■ Regular, one-to-one supervision is the
best way of making sure all volunteers
are supported properly, but can take up
a lot of time, and you may need to
make sure volunteers do not find the
idea daunting and are put at their ease.
With these pros and cons in mind,
a support programme that involves
two or three of the above is
advisable to cater for all needs.
Clearly defined and well advertised forms
of support are necessary. Volunteers will
not respond to vague offers of support
unless there is an identifiable means by
which they can obtain it. If you expect
volunteers to attend support sessions and
it is a requirement of their volunteering
then it should be made clear when a
volunteer first offers their time.
Page 26

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Balancing the needs of
the organisation and the
needs of volunteers
As a matter of principle, it is important
that all volunteers have equal access to
a basic level of support, although you
may want to commit some extra
support to those volunteers who may
otherwise not consider volunteering, or
who are experiencing a difficult time.
People who manage volunteers also need
to be aware that the support demanded
by some volunteers may be out of the
boundaries of the agency. It is important
to discuss support with volunteers, and to
be realistic if you do not believe your
agency has the necessary resources of
time or staff. Good support and
supervision is about finding an effective
balance between the needs of the
volunteer and the needs of the
organisation.
It is important that the person
managing volunteers is clear about
their own boundaries. Volunteers will
inevitably want to share their problems
with someone they know and trust, but
spending too much time on individual
support means that less time is
available to other volunteers.
Volunteer Supervision
Supervision or feedback sessions are the
volunteer finding out how they are fitting
in with your agency, its aims and goals. It
is normally done on a one-to-one basis
with the volunteer. Volunteers should be
encouraged to bring their own agenda to
a supervision session and see it as a time
where they can freely and confidentially
express their thoughts, opinions and
doubts. For the member of staff it is an
occasion to be informed about work
undertaken, planned or forgotten about.
It is an opportunity to assess progress,
identify problems and plan for the future.
This is also the time to raise specific issues
that you are concerned about. These
should be dealt with at the time rather
than allowing them to build up and
become a major issue. It is an opportunity
to assess progress, identify problems and
plan for the future. This is also the time to
raise specific issues that you are concerned
about. These should be dealt with at the
time rather than allowing them to build
up and become a major issue .We
recommend you do this once a year.
Points to be raised in
supervision or feedback
session
• Always put the volunteer at their
ease and select the venue carefully
(a confidential space where you will
not be interrupted)
• What is going well?
• What could be improved?
• How are relations with staff,
volunteers, clients and management?
Page 27

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
• Are there practical problems
emerging (e.g. expenses, health &
safety)? Are there any policy issues
over which the volunteer or
supervisor has concerns?
• Would the volunteer benefit from
any extra training?
• Does the volunteer have any
personal matters that maybe
impacting their volunteering.
• Are there any skills or roles that the
volunteer would like to develop in
the future?
Consideration should be given to the
recording of supervision sessions. It is
a matter for each agency to decide
whether they will keep records of
supervision sessions, where any records
will be kept and who will have access to
these records.
• This is also the time for you to give
feedback and positive
encouragement and to say thank
you to your volunteer
Page 28

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Volunteer Expenses
One practical way of making sure that volunteers feel supported and valued is to
make sure that they are not left out of pocket. Not every volunteer will want or
need to claim expenses, but for people who are unemployed or on a fixed or low
income such as benefits or a pension, this can be a real issue. Even quite small
expenses such as a bus fare can make volunteering too expensive for some people.
Expenses which organisations can
legitimately offer to volunteers include:
• Travel expenses from home to and
from the place of volunteering
• Travel expenses in the course of
volunteering
• (Either a mileage rate for volunteers
who use their own car, or the actual
cost of bus, rail or taxi fares)
• Meals or refreshments provided by
you, or reimbursement of the actual
cost of meals or refreshments taken
while volunteering.
• The cost of specialist clothing,
materials etc. required to volunteer
• Childcare costs, or the care of adult
dependants, while the carer is
volunteering
Ideally, volunteers should always be
reimbursed the actual cost of their
expenses, with documentary evidence
to back this up (e.g. a receipt, bus
ticket or mileage record).
You need to be aware that if you offer ‘flat
rate’ expenses (however small the
amount), or if you pay them more than
the actual cost (e.g. if you ‘round up’ the
amount you give them) or if you explicitly
offer volunteers perks with a monetary
value in exchange for a certain number of
hours work, you may inadvertently be
creating a contract of employment. It can
also create problems for volunteers on
welfare benefits. Contact your local
Volunteer Centre for guidance if you think
you might be doing this.
You need to make sure that there is an
organisational culture which
encourages volunteers to claim
expenses, without feeling guilty or
uncomfortable, and a clear process for
doing so. If volunteers don’t want
expenses, encourage them to claim
them and donate them back to the
organisation (if they are tax payers and
sign a Gift Aid declaration, charities can
then claim back the tax) – but there
should be no pressure for volunteers to
do so.
Some organisations, particularly small
voluntary organisations or community
groups, may not have the resources to
pay expenses. Some volunteers will leave
or choose another organisation as a result
– so you might want to make a
commitment to paying expenses in
future, and to include volunteer expenses
as a budget item in future funding
applications.
Page 29

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Recognition of your Volunteers
Recognition is an important way of
showing your volunteers that they are
really valued and an important part of
the team. It does not need to involve
major appreciation events and can
include a number of aspects to ensure
that appreciation is a central part of
your organisation’s ethos.
Of course, a social event/celebration is
usually appreciated and even though not
everyone will come – volunteers like to be
asked!
Here are some other ways to recognise your
volunteers:
■ By everyone in organisation!
Trustees, managers and staff - not
just the volunteer coordinator.
■ Volunteers should have a voice – use
Meetings/suggestion/support
meetings/supervision or review notes
to allow volunteers to express views
on the organisation and how they
might suggest
improvements/changes.
■ Be open to feedback – e.g. Get
Feedback on Policies and Procedures
– Volunteer reps on Management
committee, consultation documents,
Newsletter (formal or informal)
■ Help development - regular
supervision review meetings, training
programmes (keep records), moving
into other voluntary roles on offer
■ Recognise achievements - certificates,
thank you cards, when leaving you
may well be asked to give references
■ Recognise your volunteers publically –
at AGMs, in Newsletters, other
events.
■ Learn from your volunteers – be open
to volunteers helping the organisation
to develop, they may bring many
skills from other parts of their lives
■ Say thanks - many volunteers
appreciate a simple, sincere thank
you. Especially if can be made specific
– e.g. thank you for the way that you
handled that situation, phone call etc.
■ Some organisations give Christmas
cards or birthday cards – but if you do
this be sure not to leave anyone out.
Page 30

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Keeping Volunteers Motivated
Volunteers are more likely to STAY if they:
■ Feel appreciated and recognised by
the organisation
■ Are used effectively and can see that
their work is needed
■ Feel that they are doing something
worthwhile and that they do make a
difference
■ There is the flexibility for them to be
able to change or develop their role
or commitment if they want to
■ Are provided with an opportunity for
learning, skills development and
personal growth
■ Feel confident that they can handle
the tasks they are asked to do
■ Are adequately supported and
supervised
■ Have a sense of belonging and being
part of a team, and are given
opportunities to socialise with others.
■ Are consulted about their work and
have the opportunity to contribute to
policy and decision making if they
want to
■ Are accepted and supported by other
volunteers and paid staff
■ Feel that their personal needs and
motivations are being met
Volunteers are likely to LEAVE if they
■ Feel unappreciated or taken for
granted
■ Have too many demands made on
them or on their time
■ Are asked to do things they don’t feel
equipped to cope wit
■ Are given too much involvement and
responsibility – or too little
■ Have unrealistic or unclear
expectations of their role
■ End up out of pocket
■ Don’t enjoy what they do or feel that
it’s not valuable
■ Feel that their time is being wasted or
their work badly organised
■ Feel isolated
Page 31

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Dealing with Problems
If volunteers know what is expected of them, and are properly trained and
supervised, it is less likely that things will go wrong, and that any problems that do
arise are dealt with quickly and effectively.
However it is a good idea to consider:
• What a volunteer can do if they have a complaint about the organisation, a
member of staff or another volunteer
• What you will do if you are unhappy with the behavior of a volunteer
Complaints made by volunteers
Volunteers need to know who they go to if they have a complaint about the organisation,
a member of staff or another volunteer, and to be confident that their complaint will be
taken seriously and handled sensitively.
Making a complaint – a sample policy for volunteers
__________________ (name of organisation) is concerned about the welfare of its
volunteers and takes any complaints seriously. If you have a complaint about the
organisation, a member of staff or another volunteer, the following procedure should be
used to make the organisation aware of the problem.
STAGE 1:
You should first of all raise the matter informally with your supervisor.
STAGE 2:
If this does not improve matters, or if the complaint is against your supervisor, you should
request a meeting with __________________ (a senior manager or trustee) and put your
complaint to them. The person you are complaining about will have the opportunity to
respond, and to take steps to improve the situation if necessary.
STAGE 3:
If after ___ days there is still reason for complaint, then you should put the complaint in
writing to __________________ (a senior person such as the chief executive or chair of the
trustees). They will investigate the problem and let you know the outcome, and any
further steps that will be taken, in writing within ___ days of receiving your complaint.
Page 32

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Complaints about Volunteers
It is good practice to have a clear and transparent procedure for making sure that
complaints are handled fairly, and to make sure volunteers are aware of this and
have access to a written copy of the procedure.
The first step is always to try to resolve the issue informally, by talking to the volunteer.
They may be unaware that there is a problem, or they may be bored with or unsuited to
the role. Further training or a change of role may resolve the problem.
An example of a policy for dealing with complaints about
volunteers
_________________ (name of the organisation) is committed to treating volunteers fairly
and to making sure that any complaints about volunteers’ behavior are dealt with in a fair
and transparent way, giving volunteers the opportunity to put their case.
If a complaint is made about a volunteer’s behavior, the following procedure will
take place.
Step 1:
In the first instance, the volunteer’s immediate supervisor will discuss the matter
informally with the volunteer to try and resolve the problem.
Step 2:
If this does not solve the problem, the volunteer’s supervisor will arrange a formal
meeting with the volunteer to discuss the problem, giving the volunteer the chance
to respond to the complaint. An informal warning may be made and steps agreed
to change the volunteer’s behavior.
Step 3:
If there are further grounds for complaint, a formal meeting will be arranged
between the volunteer, volunteer supervisor and ____________________
(a senior person within the organisation, for example the manager or a trustee).
A formal warning may be issued, and the volunteer made aware that if the
volunteer repeats the behavior they will be asked to leave.
Page 33

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Step 4:
If the offending behavior is repeated, the volunteer will be
asked to leave.
In the case of serious misconduct (for example violence or theft) the volunteer may be
suspended immediately while an investigation takes place. The investigation will be
carried out by the volunteer’s supervisor and _______________________ (a senior person
in the organisation) A decision will be made within ____ days and the volunteer informed
of the decision (state how they will be informed). If the complaint is upheld, the
volunteer will be asked to leave.
Volunteers will have the right:
• To be accompanied at meetings at any stage by a friend, volunteer or staff member
of their choice.
• To appeal against any decision made. The appeal should be made in writing to
_____________________________ (a senior person such as the chief executive or
chair) and the volunteer will have the opportunity to put their case in person to
them. A decision will be made within ___ days and this decision will be final.
Page 34

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Saying Goodbye
Volunteers leave for many reasons – because of changes in their personal
circumstances, caring responsibilities, to take a paid job, because they move house
or leave the area, or just because they want to pursue other interests or priorities.
Of course, others may leave because they are bored or de-motivated or unhappy
with their experience.
Do you know why volunteers leave your organisation?
It’s a good idea to have an ‘exit strategy’ for volunteers, both those who have just
dropped out and those who have given you notice that they will be leaving.
This helps the volunteer to:
• Feel able to move on without feeling guilty
• Be thanked in some way for the contribution they have made
• Know that they will be made welcome if they want to return later on
• Have the opportunity to tell you why they are leaving and give any comments or
suggestions
You could do this with a phone call, or by having an exit interview, or by sending a letter
and feedback form.
Volunteer’s reasons for leaving – and suggestions that they make – should be
recorded somewhere, and evaluated at regular intervals, so that you can note any
recurring themes and make sure they feed in to future plans or developments.
Page 35

Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Further Volunteer Support and website links
www.volunteering.org.uk
www.investinginvolunteers.org.uk
www.ivr.org.uk
www.ncvo-vol.org.uk
All the above website have useful guides and information that can be easily
downloaded.
Further Support
Community Impact Bucks has produced a number of guides on all aspects
of running a voluntary or community organisation.
Guides available include:
Guide to Project Planning
Guide to Funding
Guide to Business Planning
Good Practice Guide to Involving Volunteers
Guide to Sustainable Funding and Financing Options.
All these guides can be downloaded from the Community Impact Bucks
websitewww.communityimpactbucks.org.uk
For further information about any issues raised in this guide please contact:
Community Impact Bucks, Unit B, The Firs, Bierton, Aylesbury HP22 5DX
Tel: 0845 389 0389, Fax: 01296 331464
Email: volunteering@communityimpactbucks.org.uk
Web: www.communityimpactbucks.org.uk
Registered Charity No. 1070267
PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
Community Impact Bucks
Tel: 0845 389 0389 Fax: 01296 331464 www.communityimpactbucks.org.uk

Appendix 11
Mosaic Project – Working
with BAME Communities
Good Practice Guide

MOSAIC – BUILDING CONNECTIONS
The aim of the Campaign for National Parks’ Mosaic project is to cement long term
sustainable engagement between black and minority ethnic (BME) communities and the
National Parks and Youth Hostels Association (YHA).
Mosaic achieved this through building and nurturing connections between the National Parks
and the YHA and Community Champions; people from or linked to BME communities who
have a passion for National Parks, want to get more involved with them and promote them in
their communities.
This paper shows the importance of connections and gives examples of how the Mosaic
project has worked to build effective connections between people and landscapes and
between Community Champions and staff, volunteers and members of National Park
Authorities.
How Mosaic works
Mosaic introduces people to other people and people to places who may not have otherwise
been connected. Once the connection is made, and in some cases supported, the role of the
Mosaic project becomes redundant. Building that connection takes 30 seconds in some cases
– in others it takes years.
In the first instance, Mosaic project officers are the main link between Champions and the
National Park they live closest to. Project officers recruit new Community Champions, work
with them on a personal development plan and create opportunities for them to get to know
the National Park and National Park Authority staff and members.
Connections with landscape
1. For most people, a single visit to a National Park and its awe-inspiring landscape is enough
to connect with nature and inspire others about it.
Around half of all Community Champions had never or rarely visited a National Park before
their first experience with the Mosaic project 1 . Most Community Champions attend a Group
Leader Visit when they first get involved with Mosaic. Group Leader Visits are organised by
the Campaign for National Parks and a National Park Authority. A small group of Community
Champions spend two days learning about a particular part of their local National Park. They
experience different activities – conservation volunteering, cycling or walking for example. For
many that weekend is enough to get started on promoting the park to others and organising
visits to it.
1 Mosaic final evaluation report, Liz Mackie, 2012

“The National Parks are amazing places; good places to communicate and spend time
with your friends and family. It reconnects you with the green space; it is important to tell
everyone to not take for granted the green space that is around us,” commented Sarah
Liu, a Community Champion with the North York Moors National Park after her first
Group Leader Visit with Mosaic.
2. National Parks can reconnect people to places in surprising and important ways. For
people who have come to live in England, it can be an important way of feeling more at
home.
Lucy moved to the UK from Zimbabwe 7 years ago. Most of her close relatives are still back
home. While walking in the South Downs during a Group Leader Visit the group came to a
slightly wooded area, sheltered in a dip on the exposed downland. “I suddenly feel at home,”
said Lucy. “This place is just like where I grew up in Zimbabwe.” Later she commented, “This
is where I come to feel at home now.”
Nurjahan, took a group of older Bangladeshi women on a walk in the Yorkshire Dales. They
stopped by a stream. Immediately the women removed their shoes and socks and splashed
into the water, exclaiming that they hadn’t been in a stream like this since being girls in
Bangladesh.
3. Taking part in something in the National Park builds a connection with the landscape that is
deeper than enjoyment.
“I understand what these plants are now, why they are here, what effect they are having.
Helping to maintain this land means that when I visit it next I can feel that I helped keep it like
it is, I can tell others about this land,” said one of a group Community Champions while cutting
gorse on the South Downs and burning it.
The role of the Mosaic project officer
4. A personal relationship between Mosaic project officer and Community Champion ensures
that the Champion’s experience of the Mosaic project fits with their particular ambitions or
needs. Project officers are flexible with how they use the Mosaic framework according to
each situation.
Mosaic project officers make sure to meet with Champions face-to-face as much as possible
(despite covering huge geographical areas). This is particularly important for a first meeting or
induction. Every Community Champion gets involved with the National Parks in a different
way. There is a huge range of experience and interest amongst the Community Champions. It
is only through this one-to-one contact that the project officers can introduce Champions to
the right people, arrange for suitable training and support them to organise their own events.

5. Mosaic project officers are facilitators. They are constantly networking, introducing people
and then removing themselves from the picture.
Vanessa, a Community Champion, was struggling to get started organising an ‘English Walk
Caribbean Food’ event. At a National Park organised event, her project officer, introduced her
to a local South Downs ranger. He then introduced her to several other people. Vanessa
worked with these new contacts to organise the first ‘English Walks Caribbean Foods’ event,
where local South Downs residents and new visitors to the South Downs, most from a
Caribbean background enjoyed a walk followed by a Jamaican lunch together. There was a
new cultural experience for everyone at the event. Vanessa is planning a second event – and
will work directly with these contacts to organise it.
Towards the end of the Mosaic project, the Lake District National Park Authority held a
handover event with Community Champions. The project officer did not attend. After the
event, Champions reported how it was useful that he didn’t attend, because it forced them
and the National Park Authority to work together without automatically turning to him. It
helped them develop a functioning relationship.
6. Champions who are new to National Parks and organising events or other promotional
activities are doing something new. But they will achieve great things with support from a
project officer who they trust and who lets them get on with it.
One Champion comments, “I never thought I could do these things. We learnt these new
places from the Mosaic project. When we had an idea the project officer didn’t change it, she
just helped us with thinking about how to do it. She believed we could do it, so we believed
we could do it. And we did it! And next time, we know we can do it.”
Changing attitudes and organisations
7. Personal relationships can make big changes
The Campaign for National Parks’ Mosaic project aimed to affect organisational change in its
partner organisations, the National Park Authorities and the YHA. One of the indicators of this
was that champions would become part of official decision making fora. While this is
important, we’ve found that it is the personal relationships that develop between Champions
and National Park Authority.
Staff that have the power to make changes. An external evaluation of the Mosaic project
backs this up saying that: “National Park CEOs feel that personal contact that NPA staff and
Members have had with Community Champions has had a big impact, helping them [NPA

staff and Members] to better understand how to break down barriers for ethnic minority
communities, and to feel more confident about working with and for ethnically diverse
communities.” 2
8. Informal settings and face to face introductions are best
Group Leader Visits (as described above) create excellent settings for people to meet who
would not have normally met. Champions meet staff, rangers, Members and volunteers from
the National Park Authority and other organisations. The visits provide an informal setting
which allow people to explore their wider interests and build stronger relationships. It is after
Group Leader Visits, that many champions start to organise their own events, using the
contacts they’ve made during the event.
They also offer chance encounters. Northumberland champions got into conversation with a
cafe owner during a group leader visit. She told them about their upcoming Guy Fawkes Night
Bonfire. The Champions brought their community group right up to the Northumberland
National Park for the display.
9. Connections don’t automatically happen between Community Champions.
Community Champions are different and from hugely varying backgrounds. Working
relationships form between people who have something in common, this might be cultural, a
sporting interest, similar aged children. It might be between champions who go on to work
together, or between a champion and a National Park ranger, for example.
Over the past three years, the Campaign for National Parks’ Mosaic project has focussed
building connections to create foundation for positive change in our countryside and cities.
Aisha Mirza, a Lake District Community Champion sums it up: “It’s the friendships I’ve made
with so many people, including staff working in the National Parks, volunteers, the Mosaic
team and the champions themselves. It is these ties that make this project so unique.”
© Campaign for National Parks 2012. The Campaign for National Parks asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this
document in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
2 Mosaic Final Evaluation Report, Gilfillan Partnership, April 2012

Appendix 12
Community Engagement
Strategy and Development
Year Outcomes

SLLP Engagement Strategy | Final
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Consultation and Engagement Strategy
“If you are not prepared to be influenced by what people say, then it’s a waste of resources
and time – yours and theirs.”
1. Aims
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership (SLLP) aims to achieve and effective legacy of community engagement
by involving a wide range of groups in all phases of the partnership’s work.
- Co-designing – during the development phase
- Co-delivering – during the delivery phase
- Co-evaluating – throughout
To work towards these aims, the SLLP is committed to embedding the following in how it works:
Consultation - Creating space for dialogue (responding to consultations, public meetings, or attendance at
community events).
Engagement – Influencing and changing behaviours (two way), challenging the status quo, building capacity and
social capital, creating a positive lasting legacy.
Participation – Getting people active and involved (volunteering, citizen science, training in new skills,
community initiated / led activities).
Cross Cutting Themes
Building trust and respect
Strengthening connections between groups or across generations
Building confidence and capacity
Reaching out to hard to reach groups and reducing barriers to participation
Pyramid of engagement aims
A
shared vision
for the future
management
of the area.
A shared understanding and
celebration of the natural
and cultural significance of
the Sheffield Lakeland area
More people, from a wider range of
backgrounds, engaged more deeply in
the Sheffield Lakeland.
1

2
SLLP Engagement Strategy | Final

Stakeholder Influence / Impact Analysis
(Where groups are named this is for illustrative purposes, and is not exhaustive or exclusive)
SLLP Engagement Strategy | Final
Loud voices
Strongly influential
(On outcomes / constraints)
Movers & shakers
3
National
Associations e.g.
Moorland Assoc
National NGOs e.g.
RSPB or Ramblers
Statutory
Agencies
Active
individuals
SLLP based land
owners /
developers
Peak District
National Park
2
Sheffield based
umbrella orgs
SLLP based
community
organisations
Steering
Group
Members
NGOs with
overlapping
interests e.g.
DCRT, MFF
-3
Key Indirectly a
Impacted
-2
Regionally based
SME’s e.g. B&B, pubs,
artisan food
Single Issue
NGOs e.g.
Wild Trout
Trust
Visitors to the
SLLP from
outside
Sheffield
Elected
representatives
e.g.Stocksbridge
Town Council
-1 1
Visitors to
the SLLP
from within
Sheffield
1
SLLP based SME’s
e.g. B&B, pubs,
artisan food
-1
Socially excluded
established
communities
outside the SLLP
-2
Recreational
Access Groups
Schools & Youth
Groups Outside
the area
Tenant farmers
SLLP
Schools
Urban fringe
communities in the
SLLP e.g.
Middlewood
Delivery
Partners e.g.
Steel Valley
Directly
impacted
2 3
Volunteer led orgs
in project area e.g.
Historic Societies
Rurally
excluded
communities
New arrivals (city
based)
New arrivals
(SLLP area)
3
Distant
-
voices
-3
Weakly influential
(On outcomes / constraints)
Quiet or no voice

SLLP Engagement Strategy | Final
2. Community Engagement Objectives
2.1 Embed community engagement into each project
The SLLP project team believes that making every effort to embed community engagement throughout the
Partnership’s work harnesses the resourcefulness, local knowledge, skills and experience of the people who live and
work in the area – the people who know it best. The SLLP will adopt this approach throughout its programme in
order to achieve benefits such as:
Access to local knowledge about work that has already been done to help avoid duplication;
The chance for different groups to work together - strengthening connections and building trust;
Developing skills and confidence, building local networks and strengthening capacity (legacy benefits);
A Landscape Conservation Action Plan which draws on the direct experience that people have about what
they need and what they can contribute – rather than diluting or making assumptions
Example 1: The Lost Ways Project, which will seek to uncover old pack horse trails and coffin routes and understand
their cultural significance in the landscape, illustrates how a project initiated by one community of interest (local
horse riders) can be developed to include a range of age groups and interests.
Initiated by the British Horse Society
(BHS).
Wider training in rediscovering Lost Ways, on old maps and
in the landscape provided via the Local Access Forum
which represents all recreational access groups.
Further research supported by volunteer led local history
societies- followed up by intergenerational workshops
linked to family and social history.
Family friendly community archeology event(s) led by
South Yorkshire Archeology Service - skills sharing /
outdoor environment.
Practical improvements undertaken by volunteers led by
BHS & Ride Sheffield (cyclists) & other local groups working
together. (Physically active, new skills, social contact).
The engagement of different types of groups, (e.g. archives, archaeology, access, recreation, family), provides
opportunities for different age-groups and interest groups to work together and learn from each other’s experience,
re-inforce connections, build shared understanding and increase trust by discovering areas of common interest and
concern.
2.2 Develop projects with a specific community focus (Stepping Out Projects)
It is recognised that not all groups will take up the opportunities for engagement described in 1 above. Typically
groups which are located in the upper right hand quadrant of the stakeholder analysis will be aware of and have the
4

SLLP Engagement Strategy | Final
opportunity to take up opportunities to get involved in the SLLP. However, those which fall into the bottom right
hand quadrant of the stakeholder analysis may miss out without proactive community engagement effort. This
might be for lack of awareness of the opportunity, lack of time or skills to manage a project or a lack of confidence.
Funds are identified in the programme to support the engagement of under-represented groups. These might be
socially excluded groups within the Partnership area, on the urban fringe or within the city more generally.
Activities may include stepping stone activities which build trust and confidence in situations and locations that are
familiar and accessible, with the longer term aim of supporting harder to reach groups to participate more fully in
the community engagement opportunities identified for each project. The SLLP intends to work through community
partners which already have established relationships with target groups. Funds are available to support transport
costs and costs arising from English being a second language and additional specialist consultant support.
Example 2: Stepping Out
The following illustrates an example approach – named organisations are examples only and it is understood that in
a real scenario there would be more steps;
Working with a tenants and residents association
Agree activities in the local area - e.g. walk through pictorial
meadows.
Follow on activities - flower presssing, art, photography, sowing
seeds in pots for window boxes, an illustrated talk on bees
Supported visit to a wildflower meadow in the SLLPprogramme
area, meet local honey producer, sample local produce
Group plans a supported visit...including activities identified by
the groups, increasing confidence and independence....more
follow on activities...
Claire Watts
Consultation and Engagement Officer, Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
July 2017
5

Examples of outputs from consultation and engagement activities
These examples are in addition to the large scale consultation work carried out by ORRG (Appendix
7) and Waymark (Appendix 8).
Leaflets and digital media
The project has distributed 1000 leaflets at various events, has 582 subscribers to its newsletter, 204
follows on Facebook, 515 follows on Twitter and 80 on Instagram. During the development year, the
SLLP has had a dedicated page on the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust website
http://www.wildsheffield.com/SheffieldLakeland
Leaflet showing the original project boundary.
“Word clouds” generated at consultations during summer 2017
Oughtibridge Gala

Stocksbridge Family Fun Day
Broomhead Show
Worrall Gala

Stakeholder Consultation Event 31 st January 2018
Stannington

Ignite Imaginations consultation arts based consultation workshops
Working with local groups to identify problems and opportunities
Exploring the heritage of the Loxley Valley with Loxley Valley Preservation Society

Landscape Connections pilot projects
Connecting Steps pilot projects
Working with local photographers and musicians to create the
“Visual LCAP” –
Our common
vision

Appendix 13
Water, Walls and Walks Report

Water troughs in the landscape
Following a comprehensive analysis of the approximate 82 water troughs within the eligible
SLLP area, it is recommended that 6 troughs are selected for improvement work to the
troughs and their surroundings. Those identified as being worthy to be put forward for
consideration for improvement are highlighted in red. The groundwork research was
undertaken in mid November 2017 with subsequent analysis of data and writing up
following on.
The database has been produced as a spreadsheet with identified OS locations and
comments. No assessment has been made of the ecology of the sites.
The issue of ownership of the actual trough is somewhat problematical in so much as many
of the troughs are sited just within the curtilage of the highway and there exists no known
record to verify or corroborate the assumptions made.

Water, Walls and Walks in the Sheffield Landscape
In his introduction to the Sheffield Clarion Ramblers handbooks produced in the early part
of last century, the author, GHB Ward, wrote of the local rural scenery :-
“This cankering world will never consume your soul if you can only find and realise what
beauties there are to be seen, what new life-wine can be drunk, what unsullied happiness
awaits you, outside this grimy city, this ugly picture in a glorious frame”.
Introduction
Water plays a significant part in the Lakeland area of Sheffield, most obviously in the rivers
and reservoirs which abound here. Less apparent are other water features such as water
mills, wells, troughs and drinking fountains; all have fascinating stories to tell. Most of the
mills driven by water power, which existed in this area, were submerged when the large
supply reservoirs were built. However remains of some ruins can still be found along the
length of the river Loxley. Many more functioning water troughs still exist however, and
this leaflet gives some indication of the more interesting examples, with a guide to walking a
local trail visiting some of these.
Many water troughs across the country were originally provided for animals. Those by the
roadside supplied water in the 18 th and 19 th centuries for horses; such troughs are often
located at well used junctions where they were available for watering horses after pulling
heavy loads; horses were vital for transport. It is worth recording that at the time when
troughs were a regular feature of the landscape, live cattle were still driven to market.
Unusually troughs were also provided for patrons of public houses or for a small charge
(one example was inscribed “All that water their horses here Must pay a penny or have
some beer”). Free ones made a huge difference; cabs travelled with maps showing the new
free troughs, and they have been described as Victorian filling stations.

Route Instructions
So hoist your day sack, best foot forward and we’re off to explore some of the quieter
corners of the landscape within the catchment area of the river Loxley.
For those travelling out of Sheffield on Loxley Road, it’s worth a brief stop to look at the well
preserved water trough just past the junction with Rodney Hill. This is one of several
interspersed along the length of Loxley Road. For the start of the walk we are aiming for the
Nags Head inn, where you can park nearby on the road. Alternatively you can reach the
same location by using the regular bus (No. 61 and 62) which serves the various outlying
hamlets in the parish. The Nags Head is believed to have got its name as originally the road
was known as Horsekeepers Hill, now signposted as Flask Hill.
Heading west along the Loxley Road up the valley taking care along the stretch before
Damflask reservoir, you’ll pass a double trough inserted into the walls, at the boundary of
the Peak Park. As this was a heavily used road even before mechanisation, it’s hardly
surprising that there were so many locations where horses could be refreshed. Continuing
straight on past the road junction (taking extra care at this point) we pass on the right hand
side a set of dilapidated buildings originally used during construction work on the dam.
Look for an opening in the wall which enables you to access the well-used Yorkshire Water
concessionary footpath which runs beside the reservoir. At the entrance to the path you can
read about the buildings which once stood in the valley bottom, before they were devastated
by what came to be known as the Great Sheffield Flood. There are several interpretation
boards (click on the links below) located in the valley which tell the tale of what happened
one night in March 1864 when the Dale Dike dam burst releasing 700 million gallons of
water down the length of the valley and into Sheffield killing more than 250 people.
http://www.bradfield-walkers.org.uk/PDF/Panels/Damflask%20panel1.pdf
http://www.bradfield-walkers.org.uk/PDF/Panels/Dale%20Dyke%20panel1.pdf
A description of the personal story of one family is appended. Amazingly there was only
one fatality in Low Bradfield village. A one day old baby, the child of Joseph Dawson, the
village tailor, was washed from its mother’s arms as she struggled to escape the rising
waters. Writing in 1864, the journalist Samuel Harrison gave Mr. Dawson's personal account
of the event.
“We had all been in bed about half an hour, when my wife awoke me, and said, "What is that noise? What is
that shouting?” My wife had been confined only the day before, and she was awake…My wife took the child up,
and I wrapped them both in blankets, and carried them down stairs, and out of the house. Of course my wife had
nothing on but her night dress, and the weather was dreadfully boisterous and cold. I had carried my wife and
child about twenty yards from the door when the flood met us, and knocked us both down, when we were
between Mr. Gill's and Mr. R. Ibbotson's. We were both covered by the water, and I was obliged to let my wife

go. I did not see the water before it knocked us down. I managed to get up, and again seized hold of my wife and
child. My wife said "Turn back again to the house." I did so, and just as I got to the door the flood caught us
again, and washed the blankets and my child away, and left my wife naked in my arms. I got my wife inside the
house, and pushed her a little way up the stairs. I was obliged to leave the child to its fate, or I could not have
saved my wife, for the flood was in the house. ..I opened the back chamber window, and tried to place a mattress
across to connect the window with an embankment there is at the back of the house, whence we could get on to
the hill side out of danger. The mattress was too short to reach across and it fell down. I then shouted out for
help. My brother brought a ladder, and laid it across from the window to the hillside. My wife was still
undressed, but I put her out of the window, and she was carried across and taken to Mr. Joseph Ibbotson's,
where she was clothed, put to bed, and carefully attended to. The body of the child was found in the coal cellar a
few days after.”
The path emerges after one mile back onto a quiet lane just before the village of Low
Bradfield; you will pass several road side troughs before entering the village. Directly
opposite the trough built into a high wall stood a three storey corn mill; records show a corn
mill at Bradfield from 1218. The last corn mill replaced one destroyed in the flood, driven by
a water turbine as opposed to a water wheel for all previous mills. This building (Ibbotsons
mill) burnt down in 1940 and was not replaced.
Bradfield is a very popular destination for local Sheffielders and other visitors, who are
attracted by the slower pace of life in the village, together with easily accessible refreshment
facilities. Pick a weekend in summer and you are likely to be entertained by a game of
cricket taking place on the memorial field. The village sits below three reservoirs all
constructed in the late 19 th century to serve the needs of industry and the population in the
growing towns further down the valley.
Our route takes us past the rear of the village hall down across a narrow stone bridge where
we turn right following the well worn flagstones until we reach another narrow wooden
bridge. Continue up the steep stone steps and alongside wooden fencing until we reach the
road where we turn left along the road towards Agden reservoir.
For those who want to extend this walk follow the instructions at
http://www.bradfield-walkers.org.uk/Walks/AgdenReservoir.html
Look for stone steps on the right hand side of the road before another well preserved trough.
The path goes up steeply through the trees to emerge parallel with the footpath which takes
us into the church graveyard. Here you can find several ‘Flood Graves’, of people and
families caught up in the disaster.
St Nicholas Church (Grade 1 listed) is a wonderful resting spot with a glorious panorama; its
interior displays superb stained glass. Just by the gated entrance sits a Watch Tower
constructed to deter grave robbers. Continue up the hill (Jane Lane) to emerge after 100m

opposite a fine trough, positioned to offer passing traffic (horses and driven animals) a
resting place before continuing up and over the high moors.
Here we go back down the hill past the Old Horns Inn, continuing on the main road past
the award winning Bradfield Brewery (suggestion – try their Belgian Blue beer available
near to Xmas). The views open up here so that all the reservoirs in the valley can be seen in
the distance. Some 400m past the brewery just past another shallow trough on the left, we
are looking to take a roughly made driveway on the left. Follow this public footpath for
800m until it reaches Cliffe House Farm, where we squeeze through along the path below
the recently constructed metal barns keeping on the level until we reach open fields. The
path runs alongside stone walls; this is likely to be muddy after bad weather. After 800m we
emerge at a stile near to the rear of Holdworth Hall. (The Hall has connections with the
Sitwell family from Renishaw Hall). Go left 100m and then immediately right down the road
into the small rural hamlet of Holdworth, which is mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086
(insertion). There are still several working farms here and they would have highly
dependent on horses for work and moving about the area. Not surprisingly the hamlet is
interspersed with several troughs, many hidden and difficult to find; the most interesting of
which can be found on Myers Lane which runs in an easterly direction from the hamlet.
Three interlinked troughs are located 200m on from the junction with West Lane, well
constructed on a stone basis and these would have been heavily used by local farmers in the
extensive field network nearby.
Return to West Lane and go down the hill (trough sited by Thorn House Farm) past the
garden centre to come out on Loxley Road, where we turn right to arrive back at our starting
point at the Nags Head.

Length
Grade
Starting and Finish point
6.5 miles
Medium – involves some steep ascents
Nags Head, Loxley Road
Grid Reference SK 289 906
Refreshments
Public toilets
available in both Low and High Bradfield
available in Low Bradfield to rear of village
hall
Ordnance Survey map OL1 Dark Peak is recommended for this walk.
Great care has been taken to ensure that the information is accurate. However, we accept no
liability for any claim, loss, damage or injury (howsoever arising) incurred by those using
the information provided.

IMAGES
Holdworth - Domesday Book entry
Belgian Blue

Precise grid reference of each identified (in red) trough
Holdworth Myers Lane 53’ 25 03 74 N 1’ 33 45 97 W
Stannington Spout Lane 53’ 23 43 02N 1’ 33 05 38 W
Ughill Dungworth Road 53’ 24 34 71 N 1’ 36 42 96 W
** Worrall off Boggard Lane 53’ 25 39 62 N 1’ 32 29 83 W
Bolsterstone Sunnybank Road 53’ 27 53 87 N 1’ 35 07 42 W
Stocksbridge Machin Lane 53’ 29 05 48 N 1’ 37 30 18 W
Ownership
All above (except **) sit within definition of adopted highway and are responsibility of SCC.
** Worrall trough is in private ownership (James Greaves) - Oral approval given for work.

WATERTROUGHS IN BRADFIELD PARISH
CONDITIONS SURVEY NOVEMBER 2017
OS AREA LOCATION CONDITION / COMMENT (November)
SK BRADFIELD PC AREA F= Full E= Empty P= Partial D= Damaged D/K
256 927 Agden On Northside footpath beside reservoir Small - shallow trough E
263 925 Agden Roadside on Smallfield Lane near Rocher Brook Large - well maintained - F
242 907 Bradfield Dale Roadside on Blindside Lane near to former Loftshaw House Small - built into wall - good - F
244 925 Bradfield Dale Roadside on Mortimer Road near Thornseat Lodge Medium - shallow - good F
245 921 Bradfield Dale Roadside on Dale Road opposite Dale Dyke footpath Medium/Large - good - F
246 914 Bradfield Dale Roadside on Blindside Lane near Brooms Cottage Small - good flow - F
255 917 Bradfield Dale Roadside on Blindside Lane near Annett Bridge No trace - D/K
240 910 Bradfield Dale Footpath at site of former Wragg House No trace - possibly relocated grounds Brooms - D/K
277 957 Brightholmlee Roadside on Jack Lane near Fairhurst Farm Small narrow - good flow - F
291 951 Brightholmlee Roadside in village opposite Old Hall Farm Large double - v good - inscribed 1886 - F
287 952 Brightholmlee Roadside on Thorn House Lane near Barn Cottage Small - low inset into wall - good F
297 942 Brightholmlee Roadside near junction of Storth Lane & Brightholmlee Lane Removed? D/K
287 887 Brookside Roadside at top of Brookside Bank
283 907 Damflask Roadside on Loxley Road near Damflask Farm Large double - well maintained F
274 911 Damflask Roadside on New Road Medium - inset into wall - good F
283 905 Damflask Roadside on New Road opposite Damkeepers House Relocated following wall collapse - D/K
285 908 Damflask Roadside on Loxley Road at Flask Hill Double trough - good condition - in water - F
289 893 Dungworth Roadside on Hill Top Road
280 896 Dungworth Roadside at Bottom of Cliff Hill Relocated? - possibly into garden D/K
280 901 Dungworth The Street opposite Agden View Cottage
284 901 Dungworth Roadside on Dungworth Green below last house 1 large 1 small shallow troughs - good - E
297 942 Glen Howe Roadside at junction of Green Lane & Storth Lane Removed / relocated? - D/K
276 924 High Bradfield Roadside at junction of Kirkedge Road & Delf Road Removed / relocated? - D/K
267 925 High Bradfield Roadside outside Brookside Cottages Now used as a flower garden
275 925 High Bradfield Roadside near drive to Castle Bents
286 933 High Bradfield Roadside on Brown House Lane at junction with Brown House Lane Removed? - D/K
267 926 High Bradfield Roadside on Brown House Lane near Rectory Gates Medium - good flow - good - F

WATERTROUGHS IN BRADFIELD PARISH
CONDITIONS SURVEY NOVEMBER 2017
278 933 High Bradfield Roadside on Kirk Edge Road near to junction with Cliffe House Lane
258 925 High Bradfield Roadside on Little Lane Small - built into wall - good - E
274 918 High Bradfield Roadside on Loxley Road near to junction with Nether House Lane Medium - shallow - good - reinforced - F
256 936 High Bradfield Site of former Rocher Head Farm Large - neglected - in water P
284 914 Holdworth Roadside on Holdworth Bank Lane
291 912 Holdworth Roadside on Myers Lane near junction with West Lane 3 medium - uneven flags - work needed - D - F
292 913 Holdworth Roadside on West Lane near Thorn House Medium - within curtilage - good - U
273 887 Load Brook Roadside below Heather Bank Cottage Small - decorative - E
259 918 Low Bradfield Roadside on Fairhouse Lane Relocated - believed now in Fair House Farm
263 918 Low Bradfield The Sands near footbridge Relocated - D/K
263 919 Low Bradfield The Sands under wall of car park No trace D/K
263 918 Low Bradfield Roadside opposite Smithy Garage Large - stone base - good F
307 898 Loxley Roadside on Loxley Road below Admiral Rodney Inn Iconic - 3 horse + 1 drinking troughs - excellent F
285 907 Loxley On Loxley Road between Stacey Row & Flask Hill 2 medium - ok - in water - walls need work - P
290 905 Loxley On Loxley Road opposite Nags Head Inn Removed - unknown
292 904 Loxley On Loxley Road between Nags Head Inn & Storrs Bridge Lane Large - at low level / shallow - good - F
273 393 Loxley On Loxley Road near to entrance of Barnfield House Relocated? - D/K
305 900 Loxley On Loxley Road at junction with Long Lane Relocated? -D/K
304 895 Loxley On footpath between Olive Mill and River Loxley Small low level - inset into ground - E
236 997 Midhopestones Mortimer Road outside Midhope Smithy Small - overgrown - E
237 994 Midhopestones Mortimer Road - Potters Well Large - Original village supply - v good - F
298 933 Onesacre Roadside outside Coldwell Farm 3 large troughs - inside farm curtilage - good - E
294 938 Oughtibridge Roadside at Folderings
304 937 Oughtibridge Roadside on Cockshutts Lane Relocated? - unknown
290 938 Oughtibridge Roadside at Folderings/Raynor Syke
315 924 Oughtibridge A616 road between Middlewood Hall and Oughtibridge Removed - no trace
299 939 Oughtibridge Roadside on Cockshutts Lane at Hilltop
299 886 Stannington Roadside on Stopes Road near junction with Spout Lane Medium - inset into walling - good - P
298 879 Stannington Roadside on Hopwood Lane Single trough within field boundary - F
299 887 Stannington Roadside on Spout Lane opposite Spout House 2 medium - good flow - F

WATERTROUGHS IN BRADFIELD PARISH
CONDITIONS SURVEY NOVEMBER 2017
303 884 Stannington Roadside at junction of Church Street & Oldfield Road Cast concrete (replacement?) - Planted
302 885 Stannington Roadside at junction of Church Street & Uppergate Large single - commemorative - good - F
293 878 Stannington Roadside outside Revell Grange
299 887 Stannington Roadside on Spout Lane 3 Large - in water - requiring work to ext walling F
283 880 Stannington On Flash Lane
288 896 Storrs Roadside on Storrs Green near to Storrs Grange Now used as a flower garden
294 893 Storrs Roadside near Storrs House
293 894 Storrs Roadside near Storrs Hall
258 903 Ughill Roadside on Dungworth Road near Cherry Tree Farm 1 large 2 small - work needed to walls - F
257 904 Ughill Roadside at junction beside Ughill Hall No trace - possibly relocated
256 911 Ughill Roadside on Hoarstones Road - Water Monument In grounds of Edgedale Farm - no access
256 905 Ughill Roadside opposite Upper House 2 medium - inset into walls - good - F
268 905 Ughill Roadside on Ughill Woodside Lane Medium - overgrown -good - F
271 907 Ughill Roadside at junction of Oaks Lane & Ughill Woodside Lane Removed? - no trace
220 933 Upper Midhope Roadside on Shaw Lane Removed - wooden boxed - no trace
297 954 Wharncliffe Side A616 road near Bitholmes Lane Removed / resited?
248 957 Wigtwizzle Roadside outside Wigtwizzle Farm Removed / resited?
242 959 Wigtwizzle Mortimer Road opposite Broomhead Hall Decorative -believed relocated into grounds of Hall
306 919 Worrall Roadside junction of Kirk Edge Road & Haggstones Road 2 horse 1 drinking trough - very good - F
301 926 Worrall Roadside on Birtin Lane opposite cemetery
306 919 Worrall Roadside at junction of Long Lane & Kirk Edge Road Relocated? - unknown
305 924 Worrall On Public Footpath between Boggard Lane and Walshaw Road Iconic 'washing' trough - requiring extensive work
STOCKSBRIDGE TC AREA
276 965 Bolsterstone Roadside Sunny Bank Road Small - inset into wall - leaking - E
270 967 Bolsterstone Outside Village Hall 2 medium - 1 with pump - good - E
275 965 Bolsterstone Roadside Sunny Bank Road Very large - planted up - good - no water - E
283 981 Stocksbridge Junction Haywoods Lane and Manchester Road Large - planted up - good - E
250 988 Stocksbridge Roadside Machin Lane - known as Machin Spout Medium - in water - walling repairs - F

Appendix 14
Nominate a Wall – Walling
Prioritising Exercise

Beacon Wood
base map
SK29608960
PM
SK29898950
P
GISMO. Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved. OS Licence 1000021607 / OSNI Licence 1436, 2015 / ©Getmapping plc
The Woodland Trust is a registered charity
in England and Wales no. 294344 and in
Scotland no. SC038885.
This product includes mapping data licensed from the Ordnance Survey
with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
©Crown copyright and/or database right 2013. All rights reserved. Licence 100021607.
Date: 28.10.15
Scale: 1:2500
PJ

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Nominate a wall
Wall Owner
Yorkshire Water
Cash or in-kind contribution
Owners contribution
Part of the SLLP programme, already a major contributor.
Wall location
6 figure grid reference for start and finish (only one if the wall is less than 250m long)
235 987 to 218 995
Short location description
This wall forms the roadside (front) of Midhope Reservoir along Mortimer Road and Gill Royd Lane
Photographs
Midhope field wall, Mortimer Lane PFP entrance

Midhope file wall in good condition
Example field wall gap to be repaired

Intermediate wall with example of field wall repair to coping
High quality (corporation) wall with field wall style repair

High quality (corporation) wall in need of repair before collapse.
At present there are four areas of ‘wall’ work; iconic, historic, opportunity, community
Iconic Walls
An iconic wall and why:
Throughout the UK the walls of the original water companies both reflect the local style, based
upon geology and stone size, and possibly the best quality examples of the wallers trade. This is
no different in the Sheffield Lakelands with the walls encompassing what is now Yorkshire Water
being some of the most distinctive and highest quality in the area.
This wall includes standard field walls and the classic worked walls of the water corporations
Historic Walls
For iconic and historic walls we will look to engage qualified dry stone wallers to undertake the work,
where possible there will be opportunities for people to help and learn, but it is not a requirement.

Opportunity Walls
Where a wall does not belong to a private organisation or person and there is an opportunity to
either train your own staff, volunteers or even just host other training events we could fund a dry
stone walling instructor to come along and help you (or others) learn to look after your own walls in
the future. If you have such walls let us know
Who you are
Yorkshire Water
What is the condition of the wall
Variable, see photographs, there are very good stretches of wall with some sections ollapsed or
near collapse. In addition there are poor repairs to the high quality wall which indicates lack of
appropriate skills and facilities.
What facilities are nearby (car parking, toilet)
There is adequate off-road parking for several vehicles, allowing waller and trainees to park. No
toilet facilities but Langsett facilities are only a short drive away.
Do you have your own people you want to train
Yorkshire Water would like to train three of their own staff in drystone walling techniques with
specific emphasis on restoring the corporation walls.
The project
Midhope Walls £11,000
Throughout the UK the walls of the original water companies both reflect the local style, based upon
geology and stone size, and possible the best quality examples of the wallers trade. This is no
different in the Sheffield Lakelands with the walls encompassing what is now Yorkshire Water being
some of the most distinctive and highest quality in the area.
We are looking at creating a nature reserve at Midhope, the external walls both create an identity
(classic YW or ‘corporation’ walls) the site as ‘corporation’ and offer true boundary feature of
landscape value and wildlife havens.
YW Apprentices working with qualified instructors to rebuild walls, particularly around access points.
Three YW Trainees will each receive training along the Midhope wall. They will receive instructions
days (ID) and be expected to deliver repairs without instruction as standard work days (WD) Basic
‘gapping’ training on the standard field walls from a qualified instructor. They will then complete two
gaps each.
4 x ID, 10 x WD per trainee

Intermediate gapping on the higher quality walls, trainees will receive instruction on walling
technique together with ‘hammer work’ to shape stone. They will restore one gap under instruction
and an additional gap alone
4 X ID, 5 x WD per trainee
Stone carving
Each trainee will attend a three day long carving course at the National Stone Centre. They will then
receive further instruction on repairing the high quality ‘corporation’ wall. As a final delivery the
trainees will then carve suitable walling and coping stones and repair a section of ‘corporation’ wall
to it’s original standard.
3 x days carving, 4 x ID, 10 x WD per trainee
Outputs
1km of walling will be ‘gapped’ and restored to original quality, this will include:
Three trainees each gapping 3 fallen sections of field wall (9)
Three trainees each gapping 2 sections of intermediate wall including hammer work (6)
Three trainees will restore one section of ‘corporation’ wall to include the cutting of stone (3)
Outcomes
Three Yorkshire Water Trainees receive training in traditional countryside skill together with
additional training toward the higher quality walling work which offers wider employability in the
domestic and heritage sector.
Costs
Instructor costs, senior or master DSWA only 36 days @ £250 per day = £9,000
Attendance at National Stone Centre for carving training 3 x £350 = £1050
Tools £300
PPE £600
TOTAL £11,000

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Nominate a wall
Hello all
This is an open request, not a public request but feel free to ask others.
We will be undertaking a range of walling project in the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
area, this will be over a three year period starting in 2019. Walling will be funded by the Heritage
Lottery Fund and we need to identify some walls from the outset. Please nominate any walls or
projects you feel are suitable. Here are the criteria:
General Criteria
Wall ownership and agreement, we can only work on walls where we know the owner, they give
permission for us to work on them and they are willing to sign a letter of intent (3 rd party agreement)
to retain and (within reason) maintain that wall for a period of 10years.
Wall Owner- Sheffield City Council
Cash or in-kind contribution
Where a wall is in 100% private ownership we would look for some contribution from the owner,
after all they are having a wall rebuilt/repaired. This is not a deal breaker, but will be a
consideration.
Owners contribution – 5 % contribution is available from the City Council
Wall location
We need to know where to find this wall in case we need to visit to inspect or map its’ location in
order to ensure a good spread of walls across the landscape partnership
6 figure grid reference for start and finish (only one if the wall is less than 250m long)
Short location description
Three walls around the boundaries of Cotton Star camping Agden Reservoir
SK 2576 9243- SK 25709243 60m
SK 2570 9243- SK 2571 9252 88m
SK2571 9252- SK 2576 9252 51 m

Photograph
Again, not a deal breaker but if you have a picture that will help with the ‘story’ but will also help us
identify them if we visit.
At present there are four areas of ‘wall’ work; iconic, historic, opportunity, community
Iconic Walls
There are a number of roads through and around the SLLP area and a number of views which are
considered important to the area. Throughout there are walls which sit in the landscape as
important features. It might be a wall in disrepair that makes the entrance to the SLLP landscape, or
to a village in the area ‘feel’ neglected. Or it may be a large visual stretch of wall visibly bisecting an
otherwise featureless hillside. These are iconic walls, walls where their repair or rebuild will ‘lift ‘ our
landscape.
An iconic wall and why:
The walls form the boundary of Cotton Star Camping and the City Councils Forestry Compartment,
we believe that the walls were set out when the reservoir was built if not before. The wall to the
back of the site has an unusual construction according to local wallers
Historic Walls
If you already know the history of a particular wall and it tells a story, let us have that. If you are
developing a project and would like to ‘ring-fence’ some funds as you believe there is liable to be
important old walls to repair as part of your project (and part of the story) let us know. We don’t
know how much money we can ‘ring-fence’ but it will help link projects.
The history, or the project liable to result in the story

For iconic and historic walls we will look to engage qualified dry stone wallers to undertake the work,
where possible there will be opportunities for people to help and learn, but it is not a requirement.
Opportunity Walls
Where a wall does not belong to a private organisation or person and there is an opportunity to
either train your own staff, volunteers or even just host other training events we could fund a dry
stone walling instructor to come along and help you (or others) learn to look after your own walls in
the future. If you have such walls let us know
Who you are
What is the condition of the wall
What facilities are nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have your own people you want to train
Community Wall
In order to introduce walls, the landscape, geology and wildlife to a wide variety of people we intend
to undertake some ‘wall-based’ community engagement project, particularly designed for people
not wanting to learn about walls. These walls will need to be in publicly accessible and visible places
such as along footpaths or in parks or nature reserves. I would also expect them to be in visible
locations. If you have a ‘community wall’ idea let us know, but it might be you just know of a broken
down wall in the right location. As an example, please look at
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3440328
Claire is particularly keen to identify a range of locations where wall/stone community engagement
and arts projects could occur along the Loxley Valley.
Community wall description or area
Facilities nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have an idea or is it just a possible location for others to have an idea about?
Do you have a community (geography, common factor or interest) that would like to take part in a
community wall project?

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Nominate a wall
Hello all
This is an open request, not a public request but feel free to ask others.
We will be undertaking a range of walling project in the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
area, this will be over a three year period starting in 2019. Walling will be funded by the Heritage
Lottery Fund and we need to identify some walls from the outset. Please nominate any walls or
projects you feel are suitable. Here are the criteria:
General Criteria
Wall ownership and agreement, we can only work on walls where we know the owner, they give
permission for us to work on them and they are willing to sign a letter of intent (3 rd party agreement)
to retain and (within reason) maintain that wall for a period of 10years.
Wall Owner- Sheffield City Council
Cash or in-kind contribution
Where a wall is in 100% private ownership we would look for some contribution from the owner,
after all they are having a wall rebuilt/repaired. This is not a deal breaker, but will be a
consideration.
Owners contribution 5% available
Wall location
We need to know where to find this wall in case we need to visit to inspect or map its’ location in
order to ensure a good spread of walls across the landscape partnership
6 figure grid reference for start and finish (only one if the wall is less than 250m long)
Short location description
SK255959-SK264954
External Walls around Broomhead reservoir mainly repair not rebuild 955m
SK273958-SK277956
External Walls around Morehall reservoir mainly repair not rebuild 520m

Photograph
Again, not a deal breaker but if you have a picture that will help with the ‘story’ but will also help us
identify them if we visit.
At present there are four areas of ‘wall’ work; iconic, historic, opportunity, community
Iconic Walls
There are a number of roads through and around the SLLP area and a number of views which are
considered important to the area. Throughout there are walls which sit in the landscape as
important features. It might be a wall in disrepair that makes the entrance to the SLLP landscape, or
to a village in the area ‘feel’ neglected. Or it may be a large visual stretch of wall visibly bisecting an
otherwise featureless hillside. These are iconic walls, walls where their repair or rebuild will ‘lift ‘ our
landscape.
An iconic wall and why:
Highly visible walls in the landscape
Historic Walls
If you already know the history of a particular wall and it tells a story, let us have that. If you are
developing a project and would like to ‘ring-fence’ some funds as you believe there is liable to be
important old walls to repair as part of your project (and part of the story) let us know. We don’t
know how much money we can ‘ring-fence’ but it will help link projects.
The history, or the project liable to result in the story
Walls set out when the land was enclosed in the 17 th century long before the reservoirs were built

For iconic and historic walls we will look to engage qualified dry stone wallers to undertake the work,
where possible there will be opportunities for people to help and learn, but it is not a requirement.
Opportunity Walls
Where a wall does not belong to a private organisation or person and there is an opportunity to
either train your own staff, volunteers or even just host other training events we could fund a dry
stone walling instructor to come along and help you (or others) learn to look after your own walls in
the future. If you have such walls let us know
Who you are
What is the condition of the wall
What facilities are nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have your own people you want to train
Community Wall
In order to introduce walls, the landscape, geology and wildlife to a wide variety of people we intend
to undertake some ‘wall-based’ community engagement project, particularly designed for people
not wanting to learn about walls. These walls will need to be in publicly accessible and visible places
such as along footpaths or in parks or nature reserves. I would also expect them to be in visible
locations. If you have a ‘community wall’ idea let us know, but it might be you just know of a broken
down wall in the right location. As an example, please look at
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3440328
Claire is particularly keen to identify a range of locations where wall/stone community engagement
and arts projects could occur along the Loxley Valley.
Community wall description or area
Facilities nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have an idea or is it just a possible location for others to have an idea about?
Do you have a community (geography, common factor or interest) that would like to take part in a
community wall project?

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Nominate a wall
Hello all
This is an open request, not a public request but feel free to ask others.
We will be undertaking a range of walling project in the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
area, this will be over a three year period starting in 2019. Walling will be funded by the Heritage
Lottery Fund and we need to identify some walls from the outset. Please nominate any walls or
projects you feel are suitable. Here are the criteria:
General Criteria
Wall ownership and agreement, we can only work on walls where we know the owner, they give
permission for us to work on them and they are willing to sign a letter of intent (3 rd party agreement)
to retain and (within reason) maintain that wall for a period of 10years.
Wall Owner- Sheffield City Council
Cash or in-kind contribution
Where a wall is in 100% private ownership we would look for some contribution from the owner,
after all they are having a wall rebuilt/repaired. This is not a deal breaker, but will be a
consideration.
Owners contribution 5% available
Wall location
We need to know where to find this wall in case we need to visit to inspect or map its’ location in
order to ensure a good spread of walls across the landscape partnership
6 figure grid reference for start and finish (only one if the wall is less than 250m long)
Short location description
SK 258857- SK 256852
Redmires reservoir walls to be repaired 785m

Photograph
Again, not a deal breaker but if you have a picture that will help with the ‘story’ but will also help us
identify them if we visit.
At present there are four areas of ‘wall’ work; iconic, historic, opportunity, community
Iconic Walls
There are a number of roads through and around the SLLP area and a number of views which are
considered important to the area. Throughout there are walls which sit in the landscape as
important features. It might be a wall in disrepair that makes the entrance to the SLLP landscape, or
to a village in the area ‘feel’ neglected. Or it may be a large visual stretch of wall visibly bisecting an
otherwise featureless hillside. These are iconic walls, walls where their repair or rebuild will ‘lift ‘ our
landscape.
An iconic wall and why:
Historic Walls
If you already know the history of a particular wall and it tells a story, let us have that. If you are
developing a project and would like to ‘ring-fence’ some funds as you believe there is liable to be
important old walls to repair as part of your project (and part of the story) let us know. We don’t
know how much money we can ‘ring-fence’ but it will help link projects.
The history, or the project liable to result in the story
Walls set out when the reservoirs were built

For iconic and historic walls we will look to engage qualified dry stone wallers to undertake the work,
where possible there will be opportunities for people to help and learn, but it is not a requirement.
Opportunity Walls
Where a wall does not belong to a private organisation or person and there is an opportunity to
either train your own staff, volunteers or even just host other training events we could fund a dry
stone walling instructor to come along and help you (or others) learn to look after your own walls in
the future. If you have such walls let us know
Who you are
What is the condition of the wall
What facilities are nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have your own people you want to train
Community Wall
In order to introduce walls, the landscape, geology and wildlife to a wide variety of people we intend
to undertake some ‘wall-based’ community engagement project, particularly designed for people
not wanting to learn about walls. These walls will need to be in publicly accessible and visible places
such as along footpaths or in parks or nature reserves. I would also expect them to be in visible
locations. If you have a ‘community wall’ idea let us know, but it might be you just know of a broken
down wall in the right location. As an example, please look at
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3440328
Claire is particularly keen to identify a range of locations where wall/stone community engagement
and arts projects could occur along the Loxley Valley.
Community wall description or area
Facilities nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have an idea or is it just a possible location for others to have an idea about?
Do you have a community (geography, common factor or interest) that would like to take part in a
community wall project?

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Nominate a wall
Hello all
This is an open request, not a public request but feel free to ask others.
We will be undertaking a range of walling project in the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
area, this will be over a three year period starting in 2019. Walling will be funded by the Heritage
Lottery Fund and we need to identify some walls from the outset. Please nominate any walls or
projects you feel are suitable. Here are the criteria:
General Criteria
Wall ownership and agreement, we can only work on walls where we know the owner, they give
permission for us to work on them and they are willing to sign a letter of intent (3 rd party agreement)
to retain and (within reason) maintain that wall for a period of 10years.
Wall Owner- Sheffield City Council
Cash or in-kind contribution
Where a wall is in 100% private ownership we would look for some contribution from the owner,
after all they are having a wall rebuilt/repaired. This is not a deal breaker, but will be a
consideration.
Owners contribution 5% available
Wall location
We need to know where to find this wall in case we need to visit to inspect or map its’ location in
order to ensure a good spread of walls across the landscape partnership
6 figure grid reference for start and finish (only one if the wall is less than 250m long)
Short location description
SK 258857- SK 256852
Redmires reservoir walls to be repaired 785m

Photograph
Again, not a deal breaker but if you have a picture that will help with the ‘story’ but will also help us
identify them if we visit.
At present there are four areas of ‘wall’ work; iconic, historic, opportunity, community
Iconic Walls
There are a number of roads through and around the SLLP area and a number of views which are
considered important to the area. Throughout there are walls which sit in the landscape as
important features. It might be a wall in disrepair that makes the entrance to the SLLP landscape, or
to a village in the area ‘feel’ neglected. Or it may be a large visual stretch of wall visibly bisecting an
otherwise featureless hillside. These are iconic walls, walls where their repair or rebuild will ‘lift ‘ our
landscape.
An iconic wall and why:
Historic Walls
If you already know the history of a particular wall and it tells a story, let us have that. If you are
developing a project and would like to ‘ring-fence’ some funds as you believe there is liable to be
important old walls to repair as part of your project (and part of the story) let us know. We don’t
know how much money we can ‘ring-fence’ but it will help link projects.
The history, or the project liable to result in the story
Walls set out when the reservoirs were built

For iconic and historic walls we will look to engage qualified dry stone wallers to undertake the work,
where possible there will be opportunities for people to help and learn, but it is not a requirement.
Opportunity Walls
Where a wall does not belong to a private organisation or person and there is an opportunity to
either train your own staff, volunteers or even just host other training events we could fund a dry
stone walling instructor to come along and help you (or others) learn to look after your own walls in
the future. If you have such walls let us know
Who you are
What is the condition of the wall
What facilities are nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have your own people you want to train
Community Wall
In order to introduce walls, the landscape, geology and wildlife to a wide variety of people we intend
to undertake some ‘wall-based’ community engagement project, particularly designed for people
not wanting to learn about walls. These walls will need to be in publicly accessible and visible places
such as along footpaths or in parks or nature reserves. I would also expect them to be in visible
locations. If you have a ‘community wall’ idea let us know, but it might be you just know of a broken
down wall in the right location. As an example, please look at
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3440328
Claire is particularly keen to identify a range of locations where wall/stone community engagement
and arts projects could occur along the Loxley Valley.
Community wall description or area
Facilities nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have an idea or is it just a possible location for others to have an idea about?
Do you have a community (geography, common factor or interest) that would like to take part in a
community wall project?

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Nominate a wall
Hello all
This is an open request, not a public request but feel free to ask others.
We will be undertaking a range of walling project in the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
area, this will be over a three year period starting in 2019. Walling will be funded by the Heritage
Lottery Fund and we need to identify some walls from the outset. Please nominate any walls or
projects you feel are suitable. Here are the criteria:
General Criteria
Wall ownership and agreement, we can only work on walls where we know the owner, they give
permission for us to work on them and they are willing to sign a letter of intent (3 rd party agreement)
to retain and (within reason) maintain that wall for a period of 10years.
Wall Owner- Sheffield City Council
Cash or in-kind contribution
Where a wall is in 100% private ownership we would look for some contribution from the owner,
after all they are having a wall rebuilt/repaired. This is not a deal breaker, but will be a
consideration.
Owners contribution 5% available
Wall location
We need to know where to find this wall in case we need to visit to inspect or map its’ location in
order to ensure a good spread of walls across the landscape partnership
6 figure grid reference for start and finish (only one if the wall is less than 250m long)
Short location description
SK 236919-SK234917
Thompson House Plantation mainly repair not rebuild 200m adjacent to Mortimer Road

Photograph
Again, not a deal breaker but if you have a picture that will help with the ‘story’ but will also help us
identify them if we visit.
At present there are four areas of ‘wall’ work; iconic, historic, opportunity, community
Iconic Walls
There are a number of roads through and around the SLLP area and a number of views which are
considered important to the area. Throughout there are walls which sit in the landscape as
important features. It might be a wall in disrepair that makes the entrance to the SLLP landscape, or
to a village in the area ‘feel’ neglected. Or it may be a large visual stretch of wall visibly bisecting an
otherwise featureless hillside. These are iconic walls, walls where their repair or rebuild will ‘lift ‘ our
landscape.
An iconic wall and why:
Historic Walls
If you already know the history of a particular wall and it tells a story, let us have that. If you are
developing a project and would like to ‘ring-fence’ some funds as you believe there is liable to be
important old walls to repair as part of your project (and part of the story) let us know. We don’t
know how much money we can ‘ring-fence’ but it will help link projects.
The history, or the project liable to result in the story
Walls set out when the land was enclosed in the 17 th century long before the reservoirs were built

For iconic and historic walls we will look to engage qualified dry stone wallers to undertake the work,
where possible there will be opportunities for people to help and learn, but it is not a requirement.
Opportunity Walls
Where a wall does not belong to a private organisation or person and there is an opportunity to
either train your own staff, volunteers or even just host other training events we could fund a dry
stone walling instructor to come along and help you (or others) learn to look after your own walls in
the future. If you have such walls let us know
Who you are
What is the condition of the wall
What facilities are nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have your own people you want to train
Community Wall
In order to introduce walls, the landscape, geology and wildlife to a wide variety of people we intend
to undertake some ‘wall-based’ community engagement project, particularly designed for people
not wanting to learn about walls. These walls will need to be in publicly accessible and visible places
such as along footpaths or in parks or nature reserves. I would also expect them to be in visible
locations. If you have a ‘community wall’ idea let us know, but it might be you just know of a broken
down wall in the right location. As an example, please look at
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3440328
Claire is particularly keen to identify a range of locations where wall/stone community engagement
and arts projects could occur along the Loxley Valley.
Community wall description or area
Facilities nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have an idea or is it just a possible location for others to have an idea about?
Do you have a community (geography, common factor or interest) that would like to take part in a
community wall project?

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Nominate a wall
Hello all
This is an open request, not a public request but feel free to ask others.
We will be undertaking a range of walling project in the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
area, this will be over a three year period starting in 2019. Walling will be funded by the Heritage
Lottery Fund and we need to identify some walls from the outset. Please nominate any walls or
projects you feel are suitable. Here are the criteria:
General Criteria
Wall ownership and agreement, we can only work on walls where we know the owner, they give
permission for us to work on them and they are willing to sign a letter of intent (3 rd party agreement)
to retain and (within reason) maintain that wall for a period of 10years.
Wall Owner- Sheffield City Council
Cash or in-kind contribution
Where a wall is in 100% private ownership we would look for some contribution from the owner,
after all they are having a wall rebuilt/repaired. This is not a deal breaker, but will be a
consideration.
Owners contribution 5% available
Wall location
We need to know where to find this wall in case we need to visit to inspect or map its’ location in
order to ensure a good spread of walls across the landscape partnership
6 figure grid reference for start and finish (only one if the wall is less than 250m long)
Short location description
SK 242912- SK 242913
Internal wall adjacent to Public Rights of Way in Wragg House Plantation 100 x 2 metres

Photograph
Again, not a deal breaker
that will help with the
identify them if we visit.
but if you have a picture
‘story’ but will also help us
At present there are four areas of ‘wall’ work; iconic, historic, opportunity, community
Iconic Walls
There are a number of roads through and around the SLLP area and a number of views which are
considered important to the area. Throughout there are walls which sit in the landscape as
important features. It might be a wall in disrepair that makes the entrance to the SLLP landscape, or
to a village in the area ‘feel’ neglected. Or it may be a large visual stretch of wall visibly bisecting an
otherwise featureless hillside. These are iconic walls, walls where their repair or rebuild will ‘lift ‘ our
landscape.
An iconic wall and why:
Historic Walls
If you already know the history of a particular wall and it tells a story, let us have that. If you are
developing a project and would like to ‘ring-fence’ some funds as you believe there is liable to be
important old walls to repair as part of your project (and part of the story) let us know. We don’t
know how much money we can ‘ring-fence’ but it will help link projects.
The history, or the project liable to result in the story

For iconic and historic walls we will look to engage qualified dry stone wallers to undertake the work,
where possible there will be opportunities for people to help and learn, but it is not a requirement.
Opportunity Walls
Where a wall does not belong to a private organisation or person and there is an opportunity to
either train your own staff, volunteers or even just host other training events we could fund a dry
stone walling instructor to come along and help you (or others) learn to look after your own walls in
the future. If you have such walls let us know
Who you are
What is the condition of the wall
What facilities are nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have your own people you want to train
Community Wall
In order to introduce walls, the landscape, geology and wildlife to a wide variety of people we intend
to undertake some ‘wall-based’ community engagement project, particularly designed for people
not wanting to learn about walls. These walls will need to be in publicly accessible and visible places
such as along footpaths or in parks or nature reserves. I would also expect them to be in visible
locations. If you have a ‘community wall’ idea let us know, but it might be you just know of a broken
down wall in the right location. As an example, please look at
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3440328
Claire is particularly keen to identify a range of locations where wall/stone community engagement
and arts projects could occur along the Loxley Valley.
Community wall description or area
Facilities nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have an idea or is it just a possible location for others to have an idea about?
Do you have a community (geography, common factor or interest) that would like to take part in a
community wall project?

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Nominate a wall
Hello all
This is an open request, not a public request but feel free to ask others.
We will be undertaking a range of walling project in the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
area, this will be over a three year period starting in 2019. Walling will be funded by the Heritage
Lottery Fund and we need to identify some walls from the outset. Please nominate any walls or
projects you feel are suitable. Here are the criteria:
General Criteria
Wall ownership and agreement, we can only work on walls where we know the owner, they give
permission for us to work on them and they are willing to sign a letter of intent (3 rd party agreement)
to retain and (within reason) maintain that wall for a period of 10years.
Wall Owner
The Woodland Trust
Cash or in-kind contribution
Where a wall is in 100% private ownership we would look for some contribution from the owner,
after all they are having a wall rebuilt/repaired. This is not a deal breaker, but will be a
consideration.
Owners contribution
Under consideration
Wall location
We need to know where to find this wall in case we need to visit to inspect or map its’ location in
order to ensure a good spread of walls across the landscape partnership
6 figure grid reference for start and finish (only one if the wall is less than 250m long)
SK293957
Short location description
The wall runs alongside a public footpath which branches from More Hall Lane into Bitholmes
Wood, the other side of a wooden gate.

Photograph
Again, not a deal breaker but if you have a picture that will help with the ‘story’ but will also help us
identify them if we visit.
At present there are four areas of ‘wall’ work; iconic, historic, opportunity, community
Iconic Walls
There are a number of roads through and around the SLLP area and a number of views which are
considered important to the area. Throughout there are walls which sit in the landscape as
important features. It might be a wall in disrepair that makes the entrance to the SLLP landscape, or
to a village in the area ‘feel’ neglected. Or it may be a large visual stretch of wall visibly bisecting an
otherwise featureless hillside. These are iconic walls, walls where their repair or rebuild will ‘lift ‘ our
landscape.
An iconic wall and why:

Historic Walls
If you already know the history of a particular wall and it tells a story, let us have that. If you are
developing a project and would like to ‘ring-fence’ some funds as you believe there is liable to be
important old walls to repair as part of your project (and part of the story) let us know. We don’t
know how much money we can ‘ring-fence’ but it will help link projects.
The history, or the project liable to result in the story
The two walls form either side of an ancient holloway, as evidenced by its deep cut through the
landscape. The walls are in a dilapidated condition and require extensive repair and rebuild, whilst
retaining their character.
The walls and holloway also lead to the ‘Dragon of Wantley’ dry stone wall sculpture in Bitholmes
Wood and the visitor journey to this from the main site entrance would be greatly improved by
the restoration of this wall.
Steel Valley Project has an existing working relationship with the Woodland Trust and works with
volunteers, including those from the local community, to improve the woodland for people and
wildlife. SVP volunteers are trained in dry stone walling techniques and have rebuilt other historic
walls in the area.
One of the walls is a retaining wall and this would provide a good opportunity for training SVP
volunteers in advanced dry stone walling techniques.
For iconic and historic walls we will look to engage qualified dry stone wallers to undertake the work,
where possible there will be opportunities for people to help and learn, but it is not a requirement.
Opportunity Walls
Where a wall does not belong to a private organisation or person and there is an opportunity to
either train your own staff, volunteers or even just host other training events we could fund a dry
stone walling instructor to come along and help you (or others) learn to look after your own walls in
the future. If you have such walls let us know
Who you are
What is the condition of the wall
What facilities are nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have your own people you want to train
Community Wall
In order to introduce walls, the landscape, geology and wildlife to a wide variety of people we intend
to undertake some ‘wall-based’ community engagement project, particularly designed for people
not wanting to learn about walls. These walls will need to be in publicly accessible and visible places
such as along footpaths or in parks or nature reserves. I would also expect them to be in visible
locations. If you have a ‘community wall’ idea let us know, but it might be you just know of a broken
down wall in the right location. As an example, please look at
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3440328

Claire is particularly keen to identify a range of locations where wall/stone community engagement
and arts projects could occur along the Loxley Valley.
Community wall description or area
Facilities nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have an idea or is it just a possible location for others to have an idea about?
Do you have a community (geography, common factor or interest) that would like to take part in a
community wall project?

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Nominate a wall
Hello all
This is an open request, not a public request but feel free to ask others.
We will be undertaking a range of walling project in the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
area, this will be over a three year period starting in 2019. Walling will be funded by the Heritage
Lottery Fund and we need to identify some walls from the outset. Please nominate any walls or
projects you feel are suitable. Here are the criteria:
General Criteria
Wall ownership and agreement, we can only work on walls where we know the owner, they give
permission for us to work on them and they are willing to sign a letter of intent (3 rd party agreement)
to retain and (within reason) maintain that wall for a period of 10years.
Wall Owner
Christ Church, Stocksbridge
Cash or in-kind contribution
Where a wall is in 100% private ownership we would look for some contribution from the owner,
after all they are having a wall rebuilt/repaired. This is not a deal breaker, but will be a
consideration.
Owners contribution
£350
Wall location
We need to know where to find this wall in case we need to visit to inspect or map its’ location in
order to ensure a good spread of walls across the landscape partnership
6 figure grid reference for start and finish (only one if the wall is less than 250m long)
SK268986
Short location description
The location boarders a path alongside the recently build community centre to the rear of the
church above a small area of scrubland.

Photograph
Again, not a deal breaker but if you have a picture that will help with the ‘story’ but will also help us
identify them if we visit.
Can get photos if required.
At present there are four areas of ‘wall’ work; iconic, historic, opportunity, community
Iconic Walls
There are a number of roads through and around the SLLP area and a number of views which are
considered important to the area. Throughout there are walls which sit in the landscape as
important features. It might be a wall in disrepair that makes the entrance to the SLLP landscape, or
to a village in the area ‘feel’ neglected. Or it may be a large visual stretch of wall visibly bisecting an
otherwise featureless hillside. These are iconic walls, walls where their repair or rebuild will ‘lift ‘ our
landscape.
An iconic wall and why:

Historic Walls
If you already know the history of a particular wall and it tells a story, let us have that. If you are
developing a project and would like to ‘ring-fence’ some funds as you believe there is liable to be
important old walls to repair as part of your project (and part of the story) let us know. We don’t
know how much money we can ‘ring-fence’ but it will help link projects.
The history, or the project liable to result in the story
For iconic and historic walls we will look to engage qualified dry stone wallers to undertake the work,
where possible there will be opportunities for people to help and learn, but it is not a requirement.
Opportunity Walls
Where a wall does not belong to a private organisation or person and there is an opportunity to
either train your own staff, volunteers or even just host other training events we could fund a dry
stone walling instructor to come along and help you (or others) learn to look after your own walls in
the future. If you have such walls let us know
Who you are
What is the condition of the wall
What facilities are nearby (car parking, toilet)
Do you have your own people you want to train
Community Wall
In order to introduce walls, the landscape, geology and wildlife to a wide variety of people we intend
to undertake some ‘wall-based’ community engagement project, particularly designed for people
not wanting to learn about walls. These walls will need to be in publicly accessible and visible places
such as along footpaths or in parks or nature reserves. I would also expect them to be in visible
locations. If you have a ‘community wall’ idea let us know, but it might be you just know of a broken
down wall in the right location. As an example, please look at
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3440328
Claire is particularly keen to identify a range of locations where wall/stone community engagement
and arts projects could occur along the Loxley Valley.
Community wall description or area
Facilities nearby (car parking, toilet)
Community Hall with car park, toilets, kitchen facilities and disabled access.
Do you have an idea or is it just a possible location for others to have an idea about?
The Steel Valley Project has developed a project working with Christ Church and the Social Café, a
group who provide food and drink for marginalised people in the Stocksbridge area. The wall
would use architectural reclaimed stone from the church that was set aside during the building
work for the community centre.
Do you have a community (geography, common factor or interest) that would like to take part in a
community wall project?

Members of the Social Café group would attend a day of training in dry stone walling techniques
lead by SVP staff.

Thomas Rhodri 11:14 (20 hours ago)
to t18bagshaw, me
Hi Trevor, nice to hear from you earlier.
From your description it sounds like the wall in question is the length shown red on map
below- are you able to confirm or correct that please? I will then check up on any planning
implications, listed building implications and availability of other grant sources (e.g. Natural
England’s Hedgerows & Boundaries Scheme). I am sure we would generally welcome
restoration of the wall, but there may be issues in particular of how the existing breach is
dealt with both from a planning point of view (especially as it potentially involves an access
onto the road) and a historic landscape point of view- I’ll co-ordinate response from relevant
staff and get back to you and Keith in due course.

Best wishes
Rhodri
Rhodri Thomas
Natural Environment Team Manager
Peak District National Park Authority
01629 816330
rhodri.thomas@peakdistrict.gov.uk
Hi Trevor
Thanks, none of it is a problem for me.
Simpsons wall is a good one, we have PDNPA confirming it has heritage value but we need
no permissions. HLF get a little twitchy about improving private property, I will run it by
Mike Harding as I’m a little concerned HLF might think repairing the demolished bit is not
reasonable, but I can’t take it until I have the ‘story’.
I’d expect the owners to sign a 3 rd party agreement for a small project, make a contribution
but that can be around 10%, I don’t think we’d want a logo on the wall but the wall will
feature in HLF PR and our website etc.
Again, as with so many of these projects (as you are finding out) we can help, fund, organise
etc. but the owner has to be up for the fact it’s not just free money, they need to be ‘bought
in’, this will include making sure Highways are happy for work of this sort along the road
without traffic control etc.
Cheers

Peak District National Park Authority
Tel: 01629 816200
E-mail: customer.service@peakdistrict.gov.uk
Web: www.peakdistrict.gov.uk
Minicom: 01629 816319
Aldern House . Baslow Road . Bakewell . Derbyshire . DE45 1AE
Trevor Bagshaw
Your ref:
Our ref: RWT/ FCE3283 (1)
Date: 24 October 2017
By e-mail
Dear Trevor
Wall restoration, Crawshaw Head Lodge, Hollow Meadows
Thank you for your enquiry about any consents or permissions which might be required to
restore the sections of crenulated wall at Crawshaw Head Lodge, Hollow Meadows. Having
consulted colleagues in Planning and Cultural Heritage I can provide the following information
and advice.
Planning Permission/Listed Building Consent
Repair of the existing wall to its original height would not require planning permission; nor are the
roadside wall and its host structure (Crawshaw Head Lodge) listed, therefore listed building
consent would not be required for works to the wall either. The site is not located within a
Conservation Area.
Our planners confirm that because the road is unclassified, the previous breach of the roadside
wall to create a field access is not a planning issue. We would, however, be happy to provide
further advice on restoration of this section of wall.
Historical significance
The farmstead as a whole is very interesting and we would be pleased to receive any
background / research on it. The structures have an eclectic and distinctive character. The
roadside wall is crenelated; there are crow-stepped gables ends to the dwelling and barn located
to the north; there is a Gothic arch to the entrance that addresses the road; and this Gothic
theme continues with rows of quatrefoils at first and ground floor level within the south elevation
of the barn. The farmhouse / lodge looks Victorian. The footprint of the farmhouse and barn are
shown on the 1 st Edition Ordnance Survey map (1894). The latter also shows the south-eastern
entrance to the site in the same position as it is today. The principal gate-piers and associated
setted ground surface (to the SW) look contemporary with the host building. The date of the
boundary wall is unknown but the sections flanking the principal building and the section further
east are sandstone blocks brought to courses. The section further west appears to be a
drystone wall, built from plates of sandstone, with battlements added at a later date. Beyond, the
walling looks more recent as there are jumpers (larger stones) within the roughly coursed
masonry.
Member of National Parks UK Holder of Council of Europe Diploma
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chief Executive: Sarah Fowler
Chair: Lesley Roberts Deputy Chair: David Chapman
Working together for the Peak District National Park:
▪ Where beauty, vitality and discovery meet at the heart of the nation ▪
Any information given to the Authority may be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

The crenelated wall clearly contributes to the character of the farmstead and its setting, therefore
we would welcome restoration of the sections flanking the farmhouse; the attached map shows
these sections of wall indicated in red. We would suggest trying to establish a date for the
roadside wall – is it contemporary with the host building or a later addition and /or have sections
been rebuilt recently? The ribbon dressings to the copings are characteristic of 19 th or early 20 th
century masonry in this area but local details continue to be executed.
Regarding the section of wall that stretches further west, beyond the curtilage of the farmhouse,
we feel it would be beneficial if the owner could do a bit of research to try and determine whether
or not the is contemporary with the section adjoining the house and garden or has been
embellished at a later date, in order to help assess its significance. The HE/PDNPA Historic
Farmsteads Character Statement and Assessment Framework may also be helpful in this
assessment, and can be found on the Authority’s website at
http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-after/living-and-working/farmers-land-managers/historicfarmsteads-guidance.
Without this information it is difficult for us to advise whether or not we
would support the restoration of the western part of the wall.
Funding
Keith Tomkins has already provided information on possible funding via the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership, which may well be the best funding avenue to pursue. Other options are
as follows.
The land directly adjacent to the wall marked red is not currently within any national agrienvironment
scheme. However the Countryside Stewardship Hedgerows & Boundaries Grant
Scheme (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/countryside-stewardship-hedgerows-andboundaries-grant-manual-2017),
which we anticipate will run again next year, could potentially
provide a source of funding- current payment rate is £25/metre. The field parcels associated with
the proposed walling would need to be registered on Rural Payments. However on the basis of
the scheme’s requirements for 2017 it is possible that part of this wall would not qualify. The
current scheme states ‘grant cannot be used to pay for the cost of any works within the curtilage
of the farm e.g. walls in farm yards’. Part of this wall may well be regarded as such as it has a
more domestic look to it as well as being close to the farmstead/house. The scheme also states
‘grant cannot be used to pay for meeting legal requirements, including planning conditions or
tenancy agreements’ and ‘ grants can’t be combined with other sources of public/private funding
for the same capital works in the same location’.
If considering for the National Park Grant Scheme (NPGS), we would not be able to ‘top up’ any
other sources of funding. Current NPGS rate would be £18.40m² or based on a % of actual
costs whichever is least.
I hope this information is helpful.
Regards
Yours sincerely
Rhodri Thomas
Natural Environment & Rural Economy Team Manager

Appendix 15
Access to Heritage
Condition Reports

Loxley Valley Walk Footpath Condition Survey
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1
- Point of interest identified during condition survey

1. Malin Bridge & start of Loxley Valley Walk
Malin Bridge provides public transport links by both bus and tram, and is a key ‘gateway’ to the Peak District. It is
also the beginning of the Loxley Valley Walk, which journeys up the River Loxley passing numerous industrial
heritage sites, which harnessed the power of the water flowing down the valley.
There is intermittent signage showing a yellow water wheel denoting the Loxley Valley Walk. These have clearly
been in place for some time and are missing in sections but many remain present along the length of the route.

1. – 2. Public footpath from Loxley Road to steel vehicle barrier 175 metres
A mix of concrete, cobbles and tarmac surfacing are on this section of route. It is well drained and a good surface for
a range of users.
2. Steel vehicle barrier
This steel vehicle barrier is constructed from large sections of ‘H profile’ steel beams and has presumably been
installed to prevent motorised vehicles from accessing the public footpath. The opening between the steel beams is
0.4 metres, which is a barrier to access for prams, wheelchairs and other users.
Removing this barrier would increase access for a wider range of users and access to motorised vehicles could still be
prevented using a gate or ‘K barrier’ design.

2. – 3. Public footpath from vehicle barrier to footbridge- 640 metres
This section of footpath is very well surfaced, with 390 metres of tarmac path to the dam and a further 250 metres
of limestone chippings to the footbridge at the dam inlet. There is an unguarded drop down to the river, but this is
commensurate with the type of path and gives uninterrupted views over the river and dam.

3. Bridge across dam inlet and steps
A fairly narrow (0.7 metres) stone bridge with a timber handrail crosses the dam inlet, leading to a section of steps.
This is in good condition and is clearly a historic feature.
A 6 metre length of 12 railway sleeper construction steps lead up to the continuation of the public footpath. The steps
have a wooden handrail which is in good condition. The steps themselves are beginning to rot but are not yet in need
of repair of replacement.

3. – 4. Public footpath from Steps at dam inlet to further steps- 170 metres
This section of path has been recently re-surfaced with recycled brick/ concrete crusher run and is wide (3 metres),
quite level and created easy access for a range of users.
There is a section of Japanese knotweed spanning around 10 metres on both sides of the path. It is unclear if this has
been treated with herbicide due to the time of year, with the plant in its dormant stage. This invasive non-native
species should be eradicated to prevent encroachment onto the path and degradation of the surrounding woodland
habitat.
4. Steps towards Low Matlock Lane
A section of 19 timber construction steps lead up to the continuation of the public footpath. The steps have a wooden
handrail; both the steps and handrail are in good condition.

4. – 5. Public Footpath from steps to Low Matlock Lane- 50 metres
This section of path has been recently re-surfaced with recycled brick/ concrete crusher run and is wide (3 meters),
quite level and allows easy access for a range of users.
5. – 6. Public footpath on Low Matlock Lane- 100 metres
This wide track is reasonably well surfaced, although bumpy, and provides vehicular access to houses.
6. – 7. Public footpath on Low Matlock Lane from Green Wheel Barn to Mill Dam Fishing- 510 metres
The first 160 metre section of this path is a wide vehicular (3 metre) access track, with a very muddy surface and
sections of standing water, making access difficult.

Users would benefit from this section being surfaced with an aggregate to improve drainage and create a stable,
level surface improving access on this section of the Loxley Valley Walk.
The further 350 metre section of Low Matlock Lane to Mill Dam Fishing is well surfaced with limestone chippings.
7. - 8. Public footpath on Black Lane- 410 metres
This section of quiet road provides vehicular access to housing on Black Lane and is well surfaced with tarmac,
although the surface has degraded in some sections. The track provides good level access and is designated as an
‘Easy Going Trail’ and has way marker signage to this effect.

8. – 9. Public footpath at Black Lane to bridge a dam inlet- 295 metres
This section of footpath is wide and well-surfaced with a crushed brick/ concrete aggregate, although there is some
mud on the path. There is a low-level wooden rail along this length of path, which may aid users with visual
impairments to navigate the trail more easily.
A simple wooden bench, lacking arm or back rests, is situated on this section of trail, providing a resting point
overlooking the dam. The bench is in reasonable condition.

9. Concrete bridge at dam inlet
A wide concrete bridge spans the dam inlet and has steel handrails on either side to aid crossing.
On the footpath immediately after the bridge, there is a perforated drainage pipe that is leaking water onto the path
and eroding a channel into the limestone chipping surface. This could be remedied by replacing the perforated pipe
with a solid one, carrying the water across the path towards the dam inlet.

9. – 11. Public footpath from concrete bridge to Rowell Lane- 300 metres
This section of path is wide, level and well- surfaced, with a short muddy section, which is easy to negotiate.
At 10. there is a wooden bench of the same timber construction as the bench overlooking the dam. This one provides
pleasant views over the River Loxley.
11. Rowell Bridge car park

At Rowell Bridge is a small, well-used car park that provides direct access to the Loxley Valley Walk, as well as further
links to the public rights of way network. Footpath, Loxley Valley Walk and Easy Going Trail way marker signs are in
place here as well as interpretation giving information on the history of the local area, including the Sheffield Flood
and the opening of the Easy Going Trail.
A Bradfield Parish Council notice board is situated in the car park, providing local information.
There is a dog waste bin located close to the entrance to the footpath.
11. – 12. Rowell Lane to Bridge at dam- 45 metres
There is a wooden chicane at Rowell Bridge that is in need of repair. This is currently not limiting access to motorbikes
as they are able to go through the gap between the chicane and the vegetation. It may be worth considering removing
this access barrier to improve access for other path users.

The path itself is a well surfaced concrete construction that provides good access.
12. Stone construction bridge
This wide stone bridge at the dam outflow is clearly a historic feature and has been added to with concrete surfacing
and wooden handrails to improve access and safety.
12. – 13. Dam outflow bridge to bridge crossing small stream- 135 metres
The wide concrete surfacing continues along this section and a concrete bridge with steel handrails crosses a small
stream.

13. – 14. Bridge to access road- 255 metres
The wide concrete surfacing continues along this section. There is also a wooden bench located in a clearing,
providing a resting point on this Easy Going Trail.
14. Gate and stone step stile
This wooden gate and stone stile access control is in good condition and provides way marker signage, as well as
access for a range of users.

14. - 15. Public footpath on access road from stile and gate to mill pond- 90 metres
This very wide and open limestone chippings road provides good access across this industrial land and to the section
of path which leads to the nearby mill pond. Public footpath signage is in place.
15. – 16. Public footpath alongside mill pond to concrete access track- 365 metres

This section of path runs alongside a mill pond then continues onto a woodland section of trail. The path is around
1.5 metres wide, although both narrows and widens in sections. Trees lining the mill pond are retaining the bank,
however some sections have eroded and fallen away. The surface is very muddy in sections, with exposed tree roots
making the surface more slippery. Desire lines around the muddiest sections are causing the path to widen and
damage to the adjoining woodland has occurred.
16. Drainage bar on concrete access track
A wooden drainage bar has been installed on the concrete access track (closed) but is allowing significant amounts
of water to flow onto the footpath. Remedial work is needed to either prevent the water flowing onto the concrete
track or to divert it effectively into the stream, which would require cutting into the concrete to install a drainage
channel or more effective bar.

16. – 17. Footpath from access track to weir- 130 metres
This section has been surfaced with limestone chippings and is a good wide and level path, suitable for a range of
users. It runs along a ridge between the river and a channel, which does have a drop down to the river, this is
commensurate with the type of path.
17. Steps up to Storrs Bridge Lane
7 concrete steps lead up to the road above and access is aided with a wooden handrail. Way-finding is assisted with
way marker signage on the adjacent wall, including Loxley Valley Walk signs.

17. – 18. Storrs Bridge Lane to Loxley Fisheries- 240 metres
The footpath follows a well surfaced, wide tarmac road for this section through the disused industrial complex.
Signage is still in place although some of it is well hidden on the dilapidated buildings.
18. – 19. Public footpath alongside the mill pond at Loxley Fisheries- 230 metres
This path is level and well surfaced with limestone chippings and is wide enough for a range of users. It runs adjacent
to fishing pegs, so there is the potential for temporary conflicts between fisherman and path users, which could
easily be avoided with consideration from both user groups.

19. – 21. Public footpath from mill pond to Stacey Lane- 160 metres
This section of path runs close to the river and is muddy, uneven and suffering from vegetation encroachment
(mostly brambles) which has narrowed the path to less than a metre in sections.
This section would be greatly improved with an aggregate surfacing, improving drainage and creating a smooth, level
surface, allowing a greater range of users to access this part of the Loxley Valley Walk.
20. Stone stile
This narrow stone squeeze stile is only 0.3 metres wide, possibly limiting access to potential path users. This historic
feature could be retained, whilst improving access by installing a gate adjacent to the stile, creating a wider access
control suitable for a range of users.

20. - 21. Public footpath on Stacey Bank to Loxley Road
This road leads up a steep bank to Loxley Road and is signposted with a fingerpost and various way marker discs. 95
metres are surfaced with limestone chippings, which are uneven in places but provide adequate access for most
users. The final 130 metre of the lane are surfaced with tarmac and lead to Loxley Road, where the Loxley Valley
walk terminates at the Nags Head Inn.

Recommendations for Path Improvements & Costings
21
20
19
16
15
11
6
7
2
1 - Location of recommended improvement works

Location Details of work
number on
map
2 Remove steel beams and install a steel gate, which allows a wider range
of users to access the path
6-7 Install 160 metres at 3 metres in width of aggregate to create a level,
well-draining surface on this section of path.
11 Upgrade of wooden chicane to allow all permitted users to access the
public footpath whilst ensuring others cannot access it easily.
15-16 Install 365 metres at 1.5 metres in width of aggregate to create a level,
well-draining surface on this section of path, in addition to improving the
stability of the path alongside the mill pond.
Estimated cost
£2,000
£5,000
£1,600
£14,600
19-21 Install 160 metres at 3 metres in width of aggregate to create a level,
well-draining surface on this section of path.
£4,500
20 Remove a section of stone wall and install a steel gate to enable a wider
£1,800
range of users to access the path.
TOTAL £29,500
Permissions/ consents
This work would require landowner consent and liaison to enable the projects to progress
Sheffield Public Rights of Way would need to approve the work, as this impacts on the local PROW network.

Redmires Conduit Footpath and Brown Edge Footpath Condition Survey
6
7
5
8
9
4
3
2
10
1
1 - Point of interest identified during condition survey

1. Redmires Car Park
The Sheffield City Council car park off Redmires Road provides public car parking with easy access to the public rights
of way network around Redmires, with connections to Stanage Edge, Wyming Brook and the footpath at Redmires
Conduit.
It is currently in a usable but quite uneven condition and would benefit from re-surfacing to make vehicular access in
and out of the car park easier.
There is currently no interpretation at this ‘gateway’ location, where users unfamiliar to the area may need
information on how to access the public rights of way network.
Access out of the car park is via a muddy path, a sleeper bridge with a step up and a wooden gate. This is adequate
access for users accessing the moorland footpath to the north, but could be improved for those accessing the

Redmires Conduit via Redmires Road, to allow a wider range of users to exit the car park without the need for use of
the vehicular access track.
Access to Redmires Road can be gained through the boundary wall is via a stone and metal stile or a wooden gate,
both of which are in good condition.
1. – 2. Public footpath from car park to gate- 115 metres
This quite steep path is wide and well-draining, with a fairly even surface of bed rock and sub-soil flanked by dry
stone walls and mature trees.

2. Gate leading to Brown Edge footpath
This wooden gate is in need of repair, with the latch post having broken at the base.
The gate provides access to the footpath, which has deviated from its original course to the bank above, due to the
sunken path being water-logged and heavily vegetated.
Significant work would need to be undertaken to clear the vegetation improve the drainage and surface of the
footpath in order to redirect users onto the original path.
2. - 3. Public footpath from gate to steep decent- 200 metres
The quite steep path climbs along a well-drained grass surface, which is quite even and re-joins the original course of
the public footpath at the top of the steep section.

Views of the World War I trenches that were used for army practice are excellent from this path. There is currently
no interpretation to identify these features to path users.
3. Public footpath from steep descent to boardwalk- 40 metres
The steep descent to the boardwalk is badly eroded, muddy and has an uneven stone surface. The muddiest section
is at the base of the slope, where is joins the boardwalk.
This section of path would be suitable for stone pitching, with stone flagstones on the flatter section towards the
boardwalk.
3. – 4. Boardwalk- 26 meters

This section of wooden boardwalk is in good condition and provides an easy route across a water-logged area on the
route. This timber construction, although suitable, will be susceptible to rot and will require maintenance and
eventually will need replacement. Current best practice suggests using stone to provide a longer term solution in
sensitive and difficult to access areas.
4. Wooden stile
This wooden stile is in good condition and provides access across the post and wire stock fencing. It is the only stile
on this path without an alternative gate and could be a potential barrier to access for people with mobility issues.
The access to and from the stile is very muddy and eroded and the following path is braided where people have
avoided the muddiest section, causing damage to the surrounding grassland.

4. - 5. Public footpath from stile to braided water-logged section- 365 metres
This section of footpath is across rough grassland and heathland (SSSI), but is mostly well-drained, with some short
intermittent sections of mud and consists of a fairly even surface with some bumps and depressions.
5. Public footpath across water-logged area- 30 metres
This section is extremely water-logged across a relatively extensive section of footpath, making access difficult and
desire lines around the wet area have braided the path, causing erosion and damage to the surrounding grassland
and heathland (SSSI).
This section would be suitable for stone flagging, as it is relatively level and this would provide a long-term,
hardwearing solution to increase access and minimise damage and disturbance to the adjoining habitat.

5. – 6. Public footpath from water-logged area to Redmires Conduit
This section of footpath is across rough grassland (SSSI), but is mostly well-drained, with some short intermittent
sections of mud and consists of a fairly even surface with some bumps and depressions.
6. Bridge across Redmires Conduit and Gate & stile to track on Open Access Land
A well-built stone vehicular bridge across Redmires Conduit leads to a vehicle access double track. This is where the
Redmires Conduit footpath currently ends, with local sandstone chippings surfacing up to the gate and stile.
The steel gate is currently for maintenance and landowner use only and is locked. Public access is currently via the
stile, meaning that people with mobility issues, who can access the rest of Redmires Conduit via the footpath, may
be unable to access the Open Access Land beyond.

6. – 7. Track adjacent to Redmires Conduit on Open Access Land to Oaking Clough Reservoir- 1,080 meters
A partially surfaced sandstone double track, with two narrow channels and a grassy centre follows alongside
Redmires Conduit to the small reservoir at the head of Oaking Clough.
An extension of the Public Footpath from Redmires Road, with a local sandstone chippings surface would improve
access to this moorland route and scenic reservoir on a level, well-surfaced path suitable for users of all abilities.

6. - 10. Public footpath alongside Redmires Conduit from gate to Redmires Road- 1,400 meters
This flat, level and well- surfaced section of path is accessible for a wide range of users. 8 wooden benches are
located adjacent to the path, which are well spaced along the path, some have backrests and others are simpler
designs but all are in a usable condition.
8. Steel gate
This steel gate is suitable for a range of users and gives access around the locked vehicular gate on the track. The
path through the gate is supported by a stone revetment which also allows access to the footpath to the north,
towards Wyming Brook.

9. Double steel gate
Two steel gates allow access for a range of users, whilst allowing stock to be moved across the track from field to
field. The gates are in good working order and have easy to use handles.
10. Access point to Redmires Conduit public footpath from Redmires Road
A steel gate allows easy access to the Redmires Conduit footpath from Redmires Road, which is a relatively quiet
road, except on sunny weekends and school holidays, when the area is a ‘gateway’ to the wider Peak District and
traffic can become heavier.

In order to complete the entire route described in this survey, it is necessary to walk back to the Sheffield City
Council Redmires car park along 380 metres of Redmires Road.
Recommendations for Path Improvements & Costings
6
7
5
4
3
2
1
1 - Location of recommended improvement works
Location Details of work
Estimated cost
number on
map
1 Improve links from the Redmires car park to Redmires Road and the
public footpath to the north.
- Re-surface the 30 metre section of path between the car park
£2,000
and the public footpath, either side of the sleeper bridge to 1.2
metres in width.
2 Replace the gate post on the latch side and reconnect the timber rails. £500
3 Install 40 metres of stone pitching on the eroded steep path. £4,000
4 Remove the stile and install a 1.2 metre wide wooden gate to increase
access.
£1,000

Install 15 metres of stone pitching on the braided muddy section of path. £2,000
5 Install 30 metres of stone flagging across the water-logged area. £4,000
6 - 7 Install 1,080 metres at 3 metres in width of local sandstone chippings to
extend the footpath to the reservoir a the head of Oaking Clough
£54,000
TOTAL £67,500
Permissions/ consents
This work would require landowner consent, and for the areas within the SSSI, consent from Natural England would
need to be granted. This could add additional costs to the overall project.
Sheffield Public Rights of Way would need to approve a footpath creation order for the footpath extension as well as
the landowner, with PDNP and Natural England as statutory consultees.

ID Length Action Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Notes Original Notes & Costs Contractor A - Rate A -Cost Contractor B - Rate B - Cost Alternative Treatment
NAMB S1A 250m Sub Strata Reversal 250 m £ 13.00 £ 3,250.00 Based on recent path work prices
Sub Strata - cost is for entire length but less than this will
need doing. Sections could be treated using hand work -
less intrusive but higher cost than shown.
£12 / m 3,000.00 £8 / m 1,750.00
NAMB S1A-L 500 sq m Landscaping (sections of not all) 500 m 2 £ 3.00 £ 1,500.00 Based on recent path works prices 250m by 2m strip. Brash and seed. some braid refining. £3.50 / m 1,750.00 £3.50 / m 1,750.00
NAMB S1A-L
(Brash)
500 sq m Brashing landscaped areas 500 m 2 £ 1.50 £ 750.00
NAMB S1A-M 125m / 25 Tonnes Sub strata reversal - top dressing 125 m £ 15.00 £ 1,875.00
NAMB S1A-Air 25 Tonnes Airlift all materials. 25 Tonnes 25 Tonnes £ 100.00 £ 2,500.00
Based on recent brash works - all costs
(supply fly spread) inc
Based on approx 5m of top dressing per
tonne of stone, £20 per tonne of stone and
£10 per m to lay it = £14 per m
Based on approx £1000 per 10 tonnes of
material to be airlifted
Top dressing to 100-150mm on a 1.6m track surface. 1
tonne to 4m. 30 Tonnes
Surfacing will on be required on sections - estimate 100m
total length
Surfacing will on be required on sections - estimate 100m
total length
£3 / m 300.00 £3 / m 300.00
£50 per tonne 1,250.00 £50 per tonne 1,250.00
NAMB S1-W 4 items Rolling Water bars 4 Water
inc in track
inc in track
£ 50.00 £ 200.00 Based on recent path works
constructio
Bar(s)
construction
n
Turf lined ditch - 5m by 0.5m by 0.5m.
NAMB S1-Di
20 m
20 m £ 5.00 £ 100.00 Based on ditching rates of £3/m Take water from rolling wate bars onto surounding moor. £2 / m 40.00 £2 / m 40.00
20m in total.
NAMB S1A - Total Section Total £ 10,175.00 6,340.00 5,090.00
NAMB S1B 120m Sub Strata Reversal - inc top dressing 120 m £ 13.00 £ 1,560.00 Likely to need deeper extraction depth due to clay / peat £14 / m 1,680.00 £10 / m 1,200.00
NAMB S1B-M 120m / 24 Tonnes Sub strata reversal - top dressing 120 m £ 15.00 £ 1,800.00 Whole length needs surfacing £3 / m 360.00 £3 / m 360.00
NAMB S1B-Air
27 Tonnes
Airlift materials. 24 Tonnes agg. 3
Tonnes stone for culverts
27 Tonnes £ 100.00 £ 2,700.00
This section may be accesable by ground. There would still
be a tracking (movement) charge for ground dumper.
£50 per tonne 1,650.00 £50 per tonne 1,650.00
NAMB S1B-C1 N/a 1
NAMB S1B-C2 N/a 1
4m Culvert drain £35/m + Head walls
£120/pair
4m Culvert drain £35/m + Head walls
£120/pair
£ 630.00
Based on 75% increase in previously quoted
450mm pipe takes water from W of path to E. £360 / drain 360.00 £360 / drain 360.00
£ 630.00
costs
450mm pipe takes water from W of path to E. £360 / drain 360.00 £360 / drain 360.00
NAMB S1B - Total Section Total £ 7,320.00 4,410.00 3,930.00

ID Length Action Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Notes Original Notes & Costs Contractor A - Rate A -Cost Contractor B - Rate B - Cost Alternative Treatment
NAMB S1C 380m Sub strata reversal 380 m £ 13.00 £ 4,940.00 Close to or on mineral but encrouching into moor. £12 / m 4,320.00 £8 / m 3,040.00
NAMB S1C-M 200m / 40 Tonnes Sub strata reversal - top dressing 200 m £ 15.00 £ 3,000.00 Estimate half of route will need additional materail £3 / m 600.00 £3 / m 600.00
NAMB S1C-Air 40 Tonne Airlift all materials. 40 Tonnes 40 Tonnes £ 100.00 £ 4,000.00
This section may be accesable by ground. There would still
be a tracking (movement) charge for ground dumper.
£50 per tonne 2,500.00 £50 per tonne 2,500.00
NAMB S1C-L 760 sq m Landscaping 760 m 2 £ 3.00 £ 2,280.00 2m by 360m strip. £3.50 / sq m 1,050.00 £3.50 / sq m 1,050.00
NAMB S1C-L
760 sq m Brash to SSSI Std 760 m
(brash)
2 £ 1.50 £ 1,140.00
NAMB S1C-W 6 items Rolling Water bars 6 Water
inc in track
inc in track
£ 50.00 £ 300.00
constructio
Bar(s)
construction
n
Turf lined ditch - 5m by 0.5m by 0.5m.
NAMB S1C-Di 30 m
30 m £ 5.00 £ 150.00 Take water from rolling wate bars onto surounding moor. £2 / m 60.00 £2 / m 60.00
30m in total.
NAMB S1C - Total Section Total £ 15,810.00 8,530.00 7,250.00
NAMB S2A 75m Sub Strata Reversal - inc top dressing 75 m £ 13.00 £ 975.00 Four 5m Ditches £12 / m 900.00 £8 / m 600.00
NAMB S2A-M 75m Sub strata reversal - top dressing 75 m £ 15.00 £ 1,125.00 Close to or on mineral but encrouching into moor. £3 / m 225.00 £3 / m 225.00
NAMB S2A-Air
15 Tonne
Airlift all materials. 15 Tonnes
aggregate.
15 Tonnes £ 100.00 £ 1,500.00 £50 per tonne 950.00 £50 per tonne 950.00
NAMB S2A-L 300 sq m Landscaping 300 m 2 £ 3.00 £ 900.00
NAMB S2A-L
(brash)
300 sq m Brash to SSSI Std 300 m 2 £ 1.50 £ 450.00 4m by 75m strip. £3.50 / sq m 1,050.00 £3.50 / sq m 1,050.00
NAMB S2A - Total Section Total £ 4,950.00 3,125.00 2,825.00
NAMB S2B 35m Sub Strata Reversal 35 m £ 13.00 £ 455.00 Machine through with culvert and drainage works. £14 / m 490.00 £10 / m 350.00
NAMB S2B-M
35m
Sub strata reversal - top dressing
7 Tonnes.
35 m £ 15.00 £ 525.00
Surfaced path, sub strata reversal with turf lined ditch, to
side. Stone is 60-80mm flat clasts.
£3 per m 105.00 £3 / m 105.00
NAMB S2B-Air 11.5
NAMB S2B-
CD1
NAMB S2B-
CD2
NAMB S2B-
CD3
Airlift all materials. 7 Tonnes aggregate.
4.5 Tonnes for cross drains.
11.5 Tonnes £ 100.00 £ 1,150.00 £50 / lift 600.00 £50 / lift 600.00
N/a 1 4m Cross drain £ 570.00
Original Price (2008) £35/m + Head walls
450mm pipe takes water from W of path to E. £360 / drain 360.00 £360 / drain 360.00
N/a 1 4m Cross drain £ 570.00
£120/pair = £380
Based on 50% increase in previously quoted
450mm pipe takes water from W of path to E. £360 / drain 360.00 £360 / drain 360.00
N/a 1 4m Cross drain £ 570.00
costs = £570
450mm pipe takes water from W of path to E. £360 / drain 360.00 £360 / drain 360.00
NAMB S2B - Total Section Total £ 3,840.00 2,275.00 2,135.00
NAMB S2C 175m Sub strata reversal 175 m £ 13.00 £ 2,275.00 Through clay likely to need deeper extraction depth. £14 / m 2,450.00 £10 / m 1,750.00
NAMB S2C
(Ditch)
175m Turf lined ditch, to side. 175 m £ 5.00 £ 875.00
NAMB S2C-M
175m
Sub strata reversal - top dressing
35 Tonnes.
35 Tonnes £ 15.00 £ 525.00
Surfaced path, sub strata reversal with turf lined ditch, to
side. Stone is 60-80mm flat clasts.
£3 / m 525.00 £3 / m 525.00
NAMB S2C-Air S2C Airlift all materials. 35 Tonnes 35 Tonnes £ 100.00 £ 3,500.00 £50 / lift 1,750.00 £50 / lift 1,750.00
NAMB S2C-W 3 Rolling water bars draining into ditch 3 Water
inc in track
inc in track
£ 50.00 £ 150.00
constructio
Bar(s)
construction
n
NAMB S2C - Total Section Total £ 7,325.00 4,725.00 4,025.00
NAMB S3 220m Sub Strata Reversal Path 220 m £ 13.00 £ 2,860.00 Not expected to require surfacing in this area. £12 / m 2,660.00 £5 / m 1,100.00
NAMB S3-C N/a 1 4m Cross drain £ 570.00 See above 300mm pipe takes water from W of path to E. £360 / drain 360.00 £360 / drain 360.00
NAMB S3-L 660 sq m Landscape and brash to SSSI Std 660 m 2 £ 3.00 £ 1,980.00
NAMB S3-L
(Brash)
660 sq m Landscape and brash to SSSI Std 660 m 2 £ 1.50 £ 990.00
3m by 220m strip. This is an estimate and actual areas
would need to be calculated.
£3.50 / sq m 2,310.00 £3.50 / sq m 2,310.00
NAMBW S3-DI 45m Turf lined ditch - 1m by 0.5m 45 m £ 5.00 £ 225.00 Takes water from path side drain into head of stream. £2.50 / m 112.50 £2.50 / m 112.50
NAMB S1C-W 4 items Rolling Water bars 4 Water
inc in track
inc in track
£ 50.00 £ 200.00
constructio
Bar(s)
construction
n
Turf lined ditch - 5m by 0.5m by 0.5m.
NAMB S1C-Di 20 m
20 m £ 5.00 £ 100.00 Take water from rolling wate bars onto surounding moor. £2 / m 40.00 £2 / m 40.00
30m in total.
NAMB S3 - Total Section Total £ 6,925.00 5,482.50 3,922.50
NAMB S4 116m Material movement, landscaping 116 m £ 3.00 £ 348.00 3m by 116m strip. (may need some agregate) £3.5 / sq m 1,218.00 £3.5 / sq m 1,218.00
NAMB S4 116m Brashing landscaped areas 348 m 2 £ 1.00 £ 348.00
NAMB S4-W
220m Section 4
4 Bars
Rolling water bars - hand work
4 Water
Bar(s)
£ 100.00 £ 400.00
Costs approximated as no recent rates for
Low gradient £50 / bar 280.00 £50 / bar 280.00
hand work of this nature exist

ID Length Action Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Notes Original Notes & Costs Contractor A - Rate A -Cost Contractor B - Rate B - Cost Alternative Treatment
Costs approximated as no recent rates for
220m Section 4. Four Turf lined ditch - 2m by 0.5m by 0.5m.
hand work of this nature exist
NAMB S4-Di
20 m £ 30.00 £ 600.00 Take water from rolling wate bars onto surounding moor. £14 / m 200.00 £14 / m 200.00
5m ditches 20m in total. Hand work rate.
NAMB S4 - Total Section Total £ 1,696.00 1,698.00 1,698.00

ID Length Action Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Notes Original Notes & Costs Contractor A - Rate A -Cost Contractor B - Rate B - Cost Alternative Treatment
NAMB S5 225m No action - 0.00 0.00
NAMB S4 - Total Section Total £ - 0.00 0.00
KEY
S3-L Section 3 Landscaping
Overall Total £ 58,041.00 36,585.50 30,875.50
S3-W
S3-Di
S3-M
S3-O
S3-SPF
S3-C
S3-Air
Section 3 Water Bars / Cross drains
Section Ditching Works
Section Additional Material Required
Section Operation required to progress works
Section Stone pitich ford
Section Culvert
Section Airlifting

Appendix 16
Community Grant Scheme
Supporting Information

Community Grants Scheme
Guidelines for Applicants 2017
The Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership (SLLP) is delivering and supporting a range of
activities aimed at creating long term environmental and social benefits for the Sheffield
Lakelands. The vision of the SLLP is to enhance, both physically and in the people’s minds, the area
as an asset to actively celebrate and enjoy.
The SLLP programme is focussing on some of our most treasured landscapes and our unique
heritage, supporting communities and organisations with local initiatives to boost the
conservation, management and knowledge of our natural landscape and built heritage.
What is the SLLP Community Grant Scheme?
The SLLP Community Grant Scheme is designed to help fund and implement appropriate projects
within the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape area (see map attached).
This guide provides full details about the grant in terms of what the SLLP can fund, who is eligible to
apply, any restrictions and what you need to provide with your application form.
It is important that all applicants read this guide as it gives additional information to that contained
within the application form. All applications must be made on the application form and a variety of
supporting documentation is required.
SLLP Community Grants Scheme is administered by the SLLP team, employed by Sheffield and
Rotherham Wildlife Trust, with the application process and funding being offered by both Bradfield
Parish Council and Stocksbridge Town Council. Initial enquires should be made to The Parish Clerk
team who can answer any questions and give assistance and/or advice to potential applicants to
ensure the best possible outcome.
The Community Grant Scheme is administered locally and the grant panel is made up of members of
the local community. This means funding decisions are made by people with a wide ranging
knowledge of the local area and its needs.
For further information about the SLLP visit (the website)
Who can and cannot apply?
You can apply to the scheme if you are a ‘not for profit’ organisation that falls into one or more of
the following categories:
A local community/voluntary group/organisation
A registered charity
A Social Enterprise
A School
The scheme is open to groups that are based in the SLLP project area and external groups wishing to
deliver a project in the area. Groups need to be able to provide match funding, in-kind and / or
volunteer time for their projects as the scheme will fund up to 75% of the total project costs from
the HLF and match budget, the judging panel may make exceptions under exceptional
Page 1 of 5

circumstances. As with HLF guidelines all groups must be properly constituted and able to offer
recent audited accounts or if new then dedicated bank account details).
The following cannot apply for a community grant:
Individuals
Private Businesses
Any other organisation (formal or informal in structure) with the ability to distribute funds
and/or assets among its members
Organisations which sit on the SLLP Steering Group or financially benefit from the SLLP
through the partnership
Applicants with projects that will not benefit the SLLP area.
If you are unsure whether or not you are eligible to apply please contact us for further advice.
What will the Scheme fund?
Items that we can fund:
Capital costs e.g. equipment, building costs
Revenue costs e.g. training, room hire, event costs
Items we cannot fund:
Recoverable VAT (if you are not VAT registered, then VAT can be applied for)
Retrospective costs (costs incurred or committed to before receiving a Grant Offer Letter).
General appeals
Costs for activities that are entirely or mainly set up to promote religious or political beliefs
Projects involving activities that are a statutory responsibility.
Projects that are not benefiting the Sheffield Lakelands.
Projects that cannot demonstrate that they meet at least one of the SLLP objectives.
We will not require competitive tendering or for applicants to supply three quotes against any
services, materials or products. However, the Heritage Lottery does require that all expenditure is
based upon value for money and openness, therefore we expect all applicants to explain how they
have decided upon costs. This may include comparative quotes, catalogue comparisons or evidence
of ‘going rates’ for local services.
Fund Objectives
All projects must address one or more of the SLLP’s objectives. The objectives are:
Outcome 1. A more connected and resilient landscape
Outcome 2: Bigger, better and more joined up natural environment for people and
wildlife.
Outcome 3: Better recorded and valued cultural heritage celebrated by local people and
visitors.
Outcome 4: A better understanding of the local heritage with more people helping look
after it.
Page 2 of 5

If unsure, please contact us to discuss your project ideas we aim to be as positive in supporting the
wishes of the community as possible..
How much can we give?
Groups need to be able to provide match funding in cash, and / or volunteer time for their projects,
as the scheme will only fund up to 75% of the total project value to a maximum of £5,000
(whichever is the lesser amount), the minimum grant will be £5000. Under exceptional
circumstances the judging panel may consider larger grant applications.
Projects must be matched by some of your own (or other contributing party) cash at a minimum of
10% of total project value, together with in-kind contributions and / or volunteer time as you wish.
Cash contributions must be confirmed before any grant payment from us will be released. Please
note, that with the exception of Awards for All, this grant cannot be match funded with other
Heritage Lottery funded grants.
Basic example of match funding:
Project Costs = £2,000
SLLP £1,500 75% of project costs
Other Funder/ Own Funds £500 (£200 must be cash)
TOTAL £2,000
Project Costs = £8,000
SLLP £4,000 50% of project costs are £4,000 but grant will
only fund max of £5,000.
Other Funder/ Own Funds Cash)
Volunteer Time
£800 This can be from a variety of sources, but a
minium of 10% of total project value.
See volunteer contribution rates
£3,200
TOTAL £8,000
Applicants can only receive one grant in any grant calendar year. If unsuccessful, an applicant will
not be limited on the number of applications an organisation can make as each application will be
assessed on merit.
The grant panel will meet quarterly to make decisions on complete applications. For 2018 funding
deadlines for applications are:
How to apply
All applications must be made on the SLLP Community Grants Scheme application form.
You must supply the following documents/information alongside your application form:
A signed and dated copy of your constitution. Parochial Church Councils do not have to
submit a constitution.
Most recent set of accounts or records of expenditure (if you are a new organisation then a
letter from your bank giving your organisation’s name and account number)
An original bank statement that is dated 4 months ago or less.
Page 3 of 5

Any necessary written permission required from land/building owner(s) if your application
concerns land or buildings. Please make sure they give their permission and a commitment
to retain the asset for at least the next 10 years.
Copy of any planning permissions and/or building regulations or a statement regarding the
planning position, if your application concerns land or buildings.
Child protection policy (if applicable).
Vulnerable adults policy (if applicable).
Third party insurance cover.
How is the Grant Assessed?
The Bradfield PC and Stocksbridge TC will assist you with the initial application, once complete the
application will be sent to the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust to confirm it meets the
requirements of the overall programmes Terms and Conditions.
Applications which are suitable will be considered by the relevant PC or TC to determine if it can be
supported by their programmes. This is necessary as the supporting funds offered by the councils
have some legal restrictions.
All suitable applications will be assessed by an independent panel consisting of representatives from
both councils together with non-elected community representatives and one or more member of
the SLLP Steering Group. This panel will decide which projects are awarded a grant.
On the basis that all applications that reach the panel are ‘suitable’ for inclusion in the SLLP
programme, decisions will be made subjectively with criteria including:
Geographical spread
Value for money
Additional draw down of match in cash and volunteers
Range of activity
Variety of communities being engaged.
As a final check applications recommended for support by the panel will be sent to the Heritage
Lottery Fund Monitor to confirm compliance with HLF brief.
If you are successful in your application
Successful applicants will be sent an offer letter confirming the grant awarded and a Conditions of
Grant document, which must be signed to indicate that the conditions have been accepted.
Generally, the grant must be spent within one year of the offer letter date. After returning your offer
letter you will receive notification from us to start your project.
Monitoring & Payments
If successful, all payments are made by SLLP in arrears upon receipt of a satisfactory End of Project
Monitoring Report Form with attached evidence of expenditure. Once this is received, we claim the
money down from HLF quarterly and then reimburse you. This may mean that it could take up to 3
months from the end of the project before you receive the grant. This is outside our control but
please discuss this with us if it will cause a problem.
All payments are made directly to you by cheque or BACS, to which you are expected to
acknowledge receipt. As part of the process, you are expected to keep appropriate records for 10
years. Further conditions can be seen in the Grant Conditions document.
Page 4 of 5

Upon request for payment you must submit an End of Project Monitoring Report detailing
expenditure, SLLP objectives met and the detail of differences made. This will mean that the scheme
can ensure compliance with the grant conditions and inform how the money has helped contribute
to the scheme’s objectives. Please also send us any evidence you have that showed the project took
place e.g. photographs, publicity etc.
Publicity and promotion
You will be expected to create at least one press release promoting what you are doing and
acknowledging support from the Heritage Lottery Fund through the Landscape Partnership/
You will need to submit at least one image in support of your end of project report.
Data Protection
We will use the information you give us on the application form and during the life of any grant
awarded to administer and analyse grants. We may give copies of all or some of this information to
individuals and organisations we consult when assessing applications and monitoring grants. We
may also share information with other organisations with a legitimate interest in SLLP applications
and grants or for protection from, or detection, of fraud.
Images
You give us the right to use the photographs, transparencies or digital images you send us. You must
get any permission you need for you and us to use the photographs, transparencies or digital images
before you send them to us or before you use them.
For further assistance and information contact:
…………………………………………………….
Page 5 of 5

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Community Grants Scheme
Application Form 2017
Please ensure you read the accompanying guidance prior to completing this
application form. Answer all questions and enclose all documents requested.
(It would be helpful if this form was completed in type)
If you need any assistance in completing this form, please contact the Fund
Support Team, (X)
SECTION 1. ABOUT YOUR ORGANISATION
1a. Name and address of your organisation
Give your official or registered address.
The name should be the same as on your constitution.
Full postcode:
Organisation’s website
(If it has one):
1b. Details of main contact person
This must be the person who can talk about your application in detail.
Name:
Position:
Address (if different from Q1a):
Full postcode:
Daytime phone number (include area code):
Email address:
Page 1 of 10

1c. Legal status of your group
When was your organisation formed?
How would you describe your group: e.g. constituted voluntary/community group;
school; Parish Council; registered charity; social enterprise?
Registered Charity
Number (if applicable):
Registered Company
Number (if applicable):
1d. Describe your organisation’s main purpose and regular activities.
1e. Banking Arrangements
Does your organisation have a bank account Yes No
Does this bank account require the signatures of two unrelated Yes No
people, living at separate addresses to access the account?
1f. Are you VAT registered? Yes No
If yes, give your registration number:
Please remember that if you are registered for VAT, you cannot apply for the cost of
recoverable VAT.
1g. Insurance
You are required to hold adequate public liability insurance, our support team will
assist you in determining what is adequate and will take copies or otherwise record
that you have suitable cover.
Page 2 of 10

SECTION 2. ABOUT YOUR PROJECT
2a. Name of your Project
2b. Address of where your project will take place.
Full postcode:
2c. Describe your proposed project and its core activities. (word count guidance 300)
2d. What difference will your project make? (word count guidance 200)
2e. Who will benefit from your project and how will you make sure a wide range of
people can benefit? (word count guidance 50)
Page 3 of 10

2f. How many people do you aim for the project to benefit?
Is there any particular group of people that your project is targeted at?
2g. Please state the timescales for your project
Project start date:
Project end date:
Are the dates of your project flexible, what is the earliest date when your project
could begin?
Please remember that no retrospective expenditure is eligible.
2h. Which of the Sheffield Lakeland Partnership objectives will your project meet?
At least one of the following objectives needs to be met.
Outcome 1. A more connected and resilient landscape
Outcome 2: Bigger, better and more joined up natural environment for
people and wildlife.
Outcome 3: Better recorded and valued cultural heritage celebrated by
local people and visitors.
Outcome 4: A better understanding of the local heritage with more people
helping look after it.
2i. How will your project meet the objective(s)? (Include additional sheet, if necessary)
In particular, explain how your project will involve heritage.
,
Page 4 of 10

2j. How are you going to promote your project to the wider community?
2k. Will your project involve buildings, land or objects, do you own these outright?
If you do not own the land, building or item, tell us who does.
Have you obtained permission from all owners?
Please provide evidence to show permissions have been sought and granted.
Please confirm there is an agreement in place to retain the benefit your
project offers for a minimum of ten years
If your project involves buildings or land, do you hold a lease of at least 10 years
that cannot be ended by the landlord?
Yes
No
If your project involves buildings or land, please tick the statement which is
applicable to you, and provide evidence from the local authority.
Planning permission is
NOT required
Planning permission is
required and has been granted
Q2l. Does your project involve working with people under the age of 18 and/or
vulnerable adults?
Yes
No
If yes, please tick to confirm the following is in place:
Page 5 of 10

All employed staff and volunteers who work with under 18s/vulnerable adults within
regulated activity have an up to date DBS (CRB) check.
DBS (CRB) checks are renewed every 3 years.
A child protection policy (if applicable)
A vulnerable adults policy (if applicable)
SECTION 3 – PROJECT COSTS
3a. What will be the total cost of your project?
3b. How much are you requesting from the
Sheffield Lakeland Community Grants
Scheme?
Please remember you can apply for a maximum of 75% total project costs
from £500 to a maximum of £5,000 (whichever is the lesser amount).
3c. How will the remainder of the project costs be funded?
Have you applied to any other grant funders? If so, what are the statuses of
these applications?
If remainder of costs will be funded from more than one source, please
specify the amounts.
Cash Contribution (minimum 10% of total project cost)
Volunteers involved and in-kind contributions?
Volunteer or in-kind contribution
3d. Please provide a breakdown of the project costs
Item or activity
Cost
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
Page 6 of 10

TOTAL £
3e. On what have you based your project costs? E.g. estimates from suppliers,
catalogue/internet prices, past experience of previous projects. (Please include
copies – while we do not require competitive tendering or quotes we do need to
ensure that all procurement is open)
3f. Financial Information.
Please provide the following information using your latest set of annual accounts.
Total Income for the last financial year
Total Expenditure for the last financial year
Total cash and bank balances at the end of last year
(this includes all petty cash and bank balances)
£
£
£
3g. What would happen if you did not get awarded the grant from Sheffield
Lakeland Community Grants?
Page 7 of 10

3h. How will your monitor the success of your project?
3i. What will happen when the funding from Sheffield Lakeland ends?
Will your project continue or end?
Will it be funded from elsewhere?
Will it leave a legacy in the Sheffield Lakelands?
SECTION 4 – DECLARATION
Please be aware that you are making this application at your own risk and we cannot
be responsible to anybody for any loss, damage or costs arising directly or indirectly
arising from this application.
I have read, understand and accept the notes that came with this application
form. I understand and agree to you using and publishing the information in
this application. I agree that you can check the information in it and any
supporting documents with other people and organisations.
The project, and my organisation’s role in it, falls within my organisation’s
powers and purposes.
My organisation has the power to accept a grant, under your terms, and the
power to pay back the grant if the terms are not being met.
I understand that any misleading statements (whether deliberate or
accidental) I give at any point during the application process, or any
information I knowingly withhold, could mean my organisation’s application
is not value, in which case you will cancel the grant and claim back the money
we have received, stop assessing and return the application, or withdraw any
grant offered my organisation.
Page 8 of 10

The project has not started yet and will not do so until my organisation
receives permission from you.
I understand you will treat this information in line with the Data Protection
Act 1998, and have read the Data Protection statement in the guidance
notes. I accept that you may make this form available to members of the
public under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You will be notified.
Personal information will be processed in line with Data Protection Act 1998.
On behalf of my organisation, I agree that if we receive any grant from you
for our project, we will keep to the standard terms of grant and any further
terms and conditions set out in the Grant Offer Letter.
We take from your signature(s) on this form as confirmation that you:
Have understood we have legal responsibilities under the Data Protection Act
1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Accept that we will not be responsible for any loss or damage you suffer as a
result of us meeting these legal responsibilities.
Finally, I am authorised to put forward this application on behalf of my organisation
and sign this declaration.
Print Name
Position within Organisation
Signature
Date
Page 9 of 10

SECTION 5 - CHECKLIST
Please go through the following checklist to ensure that you have enclosed all the
information you need to make an application. Applications will not be considered if
incomplete.
A completed SLLP grants application that is signed and dated by an
appropriate person.
A signed and dated copy of your constitution / governing documents.
Most recent set of accounts or records of expenditure. (If you are a new
organisation then a letter from your bank giving your organisation’s name
and account number).
An original bank statement which is dated 4 months ago or less. This will be
returned to you. Most recent is best.
Any necessary written permission required from land/building owner(s) if
your application concerns land or buildings.
Copy of planning permission and/or building regulations or a statement
regarding the planning permission if your application concerns land or
buildings.
Child protection policy (if applicable)
Vulnerable adults policy (if applicable).
Evidence of appropriate disclosure within Disclosure and Barring Service
(previously known as CRB) e.g. Name, disclosure number and date. Do not
send the DBS (CRB) checks themselves.
Please note that this is a legal requirement, if your organisation works with
children or vulnerable adults within regulated activity. See
www.homeoffice.gov.uk for guidance.
Any other information regarding the proposed project you feel will
demonstrate what you have written in your application form.
Page 10 of 10

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Community Grants Scheme
Offer Letter and T&Cs
SRWT SLLP Contact details
Successful applicant contact details
Date
Name of your Project
Dear (X)
We are delighted to offer you a Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Community Grant.
The letter acts both as notice of award and confirmation that you have understood and
agree to abide by the Terms and Conditions set out below. These terms and Conditions are
derived from the Heritage Lottery Fund and the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust, as
lead partner, has agreed to ensure all funds are distributed in line with the full Heritage
Lottery Fund conditions.
Please read the Terms and Conditions carefully and sign to evidence that you agree to
adhere to them. Failure to meet the Terms and conditions laid out below may lead to partial
or complete rejection of your request for payment.
Terms and Conditions
1 You must use the Grant only for the Approved Purposes, unless you get our approval
beforehand.
2 You must achieve the Approved Purposes by the Grant Expiry Date (X).
3 When you carry out the Approved Purposes, you will use suitable financial and other
management controls that make sure that the Grant is used for its intended purpose;
4 You must not start work to achieve the Approved Purposes without our approval
beforehand.
5 You must give us any financial or other information and records we may need.
6 If the Approved Purposes involve buying goods or services or getting work done, you must
carry out a tendering exercise in line with the requirements set out in our guidance.

7 You give us the right to use the photographs, transparencies or digital images you send us.
You must get any permission you need for you and us to use the photographs,
transparencies or digital images before you send them to us or before you use them.
8 We may make the purpose and amount of the Grant public in whatever way we think fit.
9 We will pay you the Grant in arrears and upon receipt of suitable reporting from yourself
and receipt of payment by HLF to us.
10 You acknowledge that the Grant is the total amount of funds we will provide and will not
be increased as the result of you overspending or for any other reason.
11 You must repay to us immediately any Grant that we have paid you (and we will stop any
future instalments of the Grant) if:
a) you no longer operate, or you are declared bankrupt or placed into receivership
or liquidation;
b) you have, in our opinion, given us fraudulent, incorrect or misleading information;
c) you have acted negligently in any significant matter or fraudulently in connection
with the Approved Purposes or the Approved Usage;
d) any competent authority directs the repayment of the Grant;
e) There is a significant change in your status.
f) You knowingly withhold information that is relevant to the content of your
Application ; or
g) You fail to keep to any of these terms of grant.
Please sign, date and return to
X
Print name
Signature
I confirm that I have read and agree to the Terms and Conditions set
out above and will abide by them.
Date

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Community Grants Scheme
End of Project Monitoring Report Form
If you need any assistance in completing this form, please contact the Fund
Support Team, (X)
Name of your Project
Describe how your project went with reference to the original application. (word
count guidance 300)
What difference did your project make? (word count guidance 200)
Who benefited from your project and how wide a range of people became
involved? (word count guidance 50)
Page 1 of 5

How many people did the project to benefit?
How many of you were involved in planning and delivering this project?
How many people attended events or did you contact as part of your project?
Did you involve any people in organising and delivering this project who otherwise
would not be part of a Heritage Lottery Fund project (for instance new group
members)?
Project start date:
Project end date:
Which of the Sheffield Lakeland Partnership objectives did your project meet and
how?
At least one of the following objectives needs to be met.
,
Outcome 1. A more connected and resilient landscape
Outcome 2: Bigger, better and more joined up natural environment for
people and wildlife.
Outcome 3: Better recorded and valued cultural heritage celebrated by
local people and visitors.
Outcome 4: A better understanding of the local heritage with more people
helping look after it.
Page 2 of 5

PROJECT COSTS
What was the total cost of your project?
How much did you receive from
The Sheffield Lakeland Community Grants
Scheme?
Where did the rest of the cash come from?
What were the volunteer and in-kind contributions
Please provide evidence or invoices for expenditure
Item or activity Cost Copy
attached
£ Y/N
TOTAL £
£ Y/N
£ Y/N
£ Y/N
£ Y/N
£ Y/N
£ Y/N
£ Y/N
Copy of press release attached
List photographs, together with permissions
Page 3 of 5

Request for payment
Print Name
Position within Organisation
Signature
Date
Payment method
BACS Details or bank account
for cheque
Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5

Appendix 17
Employment, Job Descriptions,
Person Specifications and CVs

SCC Ecology Unit
Hourly rates Bottom scp
HOURLY RATES ECOLOGY BU 25038
WORKABLE HOURS
2017/18
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10
Weeks In Year 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00
Working Days/wk 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Hours Per Day 7.40 7.40 7.40 7.40 7.40
Total Hours 1,924.00 1,924.00 1,924.00 1,924.00 1,924.00
No of Bank Hols 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
No of Hols - Annual (inc float day) 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Unpaid leave 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Training 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
1:1's 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60
1:1 manager time 8.11
Average Sick Days 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Total 51.60 51.60 51.60 51.60 59.71
Hours Per Day 7.40 7.40 7.40 7.40 7.40
Adjustment to total hours 381.84 381.84 381.84 381.84 441.85
NET Total Workable Hours 1,542.16 1,542.16 1,542.16 1,542.16 1,482.15
EMPLOYERS ACTUAL COSTS
Total salary cost 30,608.00 36,266.00 40,355.00 46,629.00 52,728.00
HOURLY RATE (before Overheads) 19.85 23.52 26.17 30.24 35.58
Local Overhead 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14
Corporate Overhead 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Management fee 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78
HOURLY RATE (Incl overheads) 24.37 28.04 30.69 34.76 40.10
DAY RATE (before Overheads) 146.87 174.02 193.64 223.75 263.26
DAY RATE (Incl Overheads) 180.33 207.48 227.10 257.21 296.72

SCC Ecology Unit
Hourly Rates mid point scp
HOURLY RATES ECOLOGY BU 25038
WORKABLE HOURS
2017/18
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10
Weeks In Year 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00
Working Days/wk 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Hours Per Day 7.40 7.40 7.40 7.40 7.40
Total Hours 1,924.00 1,924.00 1,924.00 1,924.00 1,924.00
No of Bank Hols 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
No of Hols - Annual (inc float day) 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Unpaid leave 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Training 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
1:1's 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60
1:1 manager time 8.11
Average Sick Days 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Total 51.60 51.60 51.60 51.60 59.71
Hours Per Day 7.40 7.40 7.40 7.40 7.40
Adjustment to total hours 381.84 381.84 381.84 381.84 441.85
NET Total Workable Hours 1,542.16 1,542.16 1,542.16 1,542.16 1,482.15
EMPLOYERS ACTUAL COSTS
Total salary cost 32,938.00 38,454.00 42,766.00 49,067.00 55,186.00
HOURLY RATE (before Overheads) 21.36 24.94 27.73 31.82 37.23
Local Overhead 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14
Corporate Overhead 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Management Fee 1.86 1.86 1.86 1.86 1.86
HOURLY RATE (Incl overheads) 25.96 29.54 32.34 36.42 41.84
DAY RATE (before Overheads) 158.05 184.52 205.21 235.45 275.53
DAY RATE (Incl Overheads) 192.13 218.60 239.29 269.52 309.61

SCC Ecology Unit
HOURLY RATES Top SCP
HOURLY RATES ECOLOGY BU 25038
WORKABLE HOURS
2017/18
Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10
Weeks In Year 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00
Working Days/wk 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Hours Per Day 7.40 7.40 7.40 7.40 7.40
Total Hours 1,924.00 1,924.00 1,924.00 1,924.00 1,924.00
Unproductive hours
No of Bank Hols 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00
No of Hols - Annual (inc float day) 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00
Unpaid leave 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Training 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
1:1's 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60
1:1 manager time 8.11
Average Sick Days 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Total 51.60 51.60 51.60 51.60 59.71
Hours Per Day 7.40 7.40 7.40 7.40 7.40
Adjustment to total hours 381.84 381.84 381.84 381.84 441.85
NET Total Workable Hours 1,542.16 1,542.16 1,542.16 1,542.16 1,482.15
EMPLOYERS ACTUAL COSTS
Total salary cost 36,266.00 41,519.00 46,629.00 52,728.00 58,807.00
HOURLY RATE (before Overheads) 23.52 26.92 30.24 34.19 39.68
Local Overhead 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14
Corporate Overhead 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Management fee 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.98
HOURLY RATE (Incl overheads) 28.24 31.65 34.96 38.92 44.40
DAY RATE (before Overheads) 174.02 199.23 223.75 253.01 293.61
DAY RATE (Incl Overheads) 209.00 234.21 258.73 287.99 328.59

SHEFFIELD CITY
COUNCIL
JOB DESCRIPTION
DIRECTORATE:
PLACE
SERVICE:
PARKS AND COUNTRYSIDE
DIVISION/SECTION:
TREES, WOODLANDS AND COUNTRYSIDE
SECTION
POST TITLE:
CASUAL STAFF – ECOLOGY TEAM
GRADE: SUG 6
RESPONSIBLE TO:
RESPONSIBLE FOR:
HOLIDAYS AND
SICKNESS RELIEF:
PURPOSE OF THE
JOB:
ECOLOGY MANAGER
N/A
N/A
TO SUPPORT THE ECOLOGY TEAM IN
MONITORING AND ENHANCING SHEFFIELD’S
LOCAL NATURE SITES.
WORKING FOR SHEFFIELD

SPECIFIC DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
With the guidance and support of the Ecology Team, working on a flexible basis
as opportunities arise:
1. Support the monitoring of Sheffield’s Local Nature Sites, surveying sites as
directed to assess their condition and status with regard to biodiversity and
geodiversity.
2. Contribute to the management and development of Sheffield’s Biological
Records Centre, validating, entering and extracting data as required for
colleagues and clients.
3. Collate and interpret ecological or geological data and information on landuse
to support the development of management plans for City Council sites.
4. Support the Ecology Team in promoting and raising awareness about
biodiversity and geodiversity, both within Sheffield City Council and amongst
members of the public.
5. Other related duties and responsibilities that may arise.
Issue date: April 2010
WORKING FOR SHEFFIELD

S H E F F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L
PERSON SPECIFICATION
POST:
Casual Staff – Ecology Team
Skills and Knowledge
Must be able to demonstrate:
MINIMUM ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS
METHOD OF
ASSESSMENT
Application
Form/Interview
1. Excellent field survey skills in either ecology or geology or thorough
understanding and experience of biological records management.
2. The ability to work efficiently and thoroughly in both a fieldwork and
office environment to meet deadlines.
3. Sound report writing skills, including the ability to analyse ecological
or geological data and present the relevant information clearly and
succinctly.
4. Excellent communication and interpersonal skills, including the
ability to enthuse and motivate others.
5. A good understanding of health and safety at work, particularly in
relation to field work, including the production and use of risk
assessments.
6. A good working knowledge of MS Office software.
7. An appreciation of and commitment to equal opportunities
Experience / Qualifications / Training
1. The ability to demonstrate extensive knowledge and relevant
practical experience in the area of ecology, geology or biological
records management.
or
an education to degree level (or equivalent) in a relevant subject,
plus at least two years’ experience of working with success in the
area of ecology, geology or biological records management.
2. Experience of using GIS and Recorder (or similar) software
packages for the collation and interpretation of biological records
would be advantageous.
3. Possession of a protected species survey license would be
advantageous.
Work related circumstances (including working conditions)
1. A flexible approach to work is essential. Due to the nature of the
post, opportunities can arise at relatively short notice and
assignments can vary in length from a few days to several months,
full-time or part-time.
2. Depending on the skills of the applicant and the opportunities that
arise, evening and weekend work may be available.
3. Willingness to travel to sites within Sheffield including the Ecology
Unit office in Meersbrook Park is essential.
Application
Form/Interview
Application
Form/Interview
WORKING FOR SHEFFIELD

ALL
1. 100 word narrative as to why and how you wish to engage existing or new staff
There is facility to utilise existing Sheffield City Council Casual Ecology Workers,
working irregular hours as and when required, to work additional hours to deliver
surveys, reports and complete management briefs. Staff will be selected for their
particular skill set from a pool of 17 CEWs. All staff will be competent across a range
of ecological survey techniques and for a range of species groups and habitats.
2. Post LCAP expectations and redundancy plans
N/A
3. Any HR Policies regarding open recruitment EO etc.
N/A
4. How you intend to report/evidence expenditure to the SLLP core team.
Detailed breakdown of additional hours and costs to be provided on monthly basis.
5. Job Description for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP
Already provided
6. Job specification for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP
Already provided
7. If already employed existing job description and specification
Already provided
8. Narrative upon what they will do, this is an expansion on what you supplied on the
project narrative
Surveys, maps and reports will be produced by Casual ecology workers working
irregular hours as and when required, with more detailed surveys targeting specialist
wildlife groups e.g. surveys for bats or breeding birds by casual ecology staff, or
specialists from the private, charity or academic sectors where we do not have the
skills ‘in-house’.
Competent and appropriately qualified staff and contractors will be utilised. Evidence
reported of qualifications and evidence of suitability of an appropriate level of
experience in ecological survey.
Contractors, specialists (from the private or charity sector), will be employed to
deliver a range of habitat management and creation projects.

9. How you have calculated how much this will cost?
Detailed breakdown provided in Project submission.

SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL
JOB DESCRIPTION
Informal Enquiries to Dave Aspinall on 0114 2053787
Project Officer (Heritage)
Portfolio:
Service Area:
Grade:
Contract and Hours:
Responsible To:
Place
Culture and Environment / Parks &
Countryside
TBC
Temporary 3.5 years. Part time. Nominal
working week: 18.5 hrs – there must be a
willingness to occasionally work evenings,
weekends and bank holidays.
Countryside Manager
Responsible For:
Holidays and
Sickness Relief:
Staff allocated to the post holder’s
responsibility
To deputise for Countryside Manager and
officers within the team
Job Purpose
To successfully implement cultural heritage improvement projects across
the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership area.
To work collaboratively to develop projects with Sheffield Lakeland
partners including internal delivery teams, external organisations, funders,
community groups and members of the public.
To ensure heritage projects meet the needs of the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership Steering Group and it’s communities, are
sustainable to manage into the future, contribute to raising quality
standards and meet agreed budgets and timescales
1

Dimensions
Location: Based at Moorfoot (city centre) and
with willingness to travel across the city as
required.
Scope: Delivery of successful heritage
projects in the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership area. Networking / partnership
working and relationship building with
communities and stakeholders.
Key decisions: Landscape Partnership
Steering Group, local community and groups,
partners, assessing needs and priorities,
establishing project scope, financial
sustainability and securing funds
Key Relationships
• Countryside Manager for key
decisions and leadership
• Archaeologist, South Yorkshire
Archaeological Service and Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Manager for
expert and technical advice
• Employees within scope of
responsibility providing leadership
coaching and support, performance
management and service
improvement.
• Internal and external stakeholders,
including voluntary groups,
committees, and Partners, for the
purposes of consultation and
decision making
Reporting Structure
Head of
Service
Countryside
Manager
Project Officer
Business Performance Criteria
• Achievement of service specific objectives
• Customer satisfaction amongst service teams, the public and embers
• Continuous service improvement.
2

Specific Duties And Responsibilities
1. Provide project management, coordination and delivery responsibilities for a range of
heritage projects identified in the Hidden History project theme of the Sheffield Lakeland
Landscape Partnership, using the development of business cases and project plans
aligned to the Sheffield City Council’s project and financial management systems where
appropriate.
2. To provide a client role function in the delivery of heritage projects. To develop briefs,
prepare specifications of work, assess the achievability and viability of design proposals,
prepare tender information, manage consultants, contractors and undertake site
supervision of on-site delivery where necessary and to ensure that surveys, designs,
specifications, and planning requirements, costing and implementation is undertaken to
a high standard and within budgets. To carry out any necessary risk management and
health & safety monitoring linked to project delivery.
3. To ensure that any necessary approvals and consents are obtained, that all legal
requirements are adhered to and funding contracts and reporting requirements complied
with in particular with Heritage Lottery rules and requirements.
4. To contribute to the delivery of the Heritage Project –The Hidden History aligned to the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Conservation Action Plan.
5. Communicate and engage with key stakeholders, Friends’ groups, voluntary and
community sector partners, the landscape partnership and other organisations to ensure
projects and plans are consulted on and are both viable, sustainable and meet the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnerships objectives.
6. To set in place systems for collecting and collating data on the Heritage Projects
including monitoring, reviewing and updating plans, by identifying and using appropriate
technology.
7. To assist the Countryside Manager with the preparation of business plans, to ensure
the achievement of targets and continuous improvement, and to monitor budgets,
including provision of required information to funding/strategic partners.
8. To manage, co-ordinate and develop any allocated staff, and to undertake training and
self-development as required.
9. To represent Parks and Countryside within the Council on any steering group created
for this project with internal and external organisations and partners.
10. The nature of the service will require occasional attendance in the evenings and at
weekends.
11. Any other related duties and responsibilities as may arise.
General Duties and Responsibilities
To undertake all duties and responsibilities in line with current Council policies and
procedures including those relating to health and safety; equalities, diversity and inclusion;
safeguarding procedures; financial instructions; procurement and commissioning.
To undertake any other duties in agreement with the post holder and manager. Significant
changes that may affect the role and responsibilities of the post or the job description would
be managed through an agreed process in consultation with the Trade Unions.
3

Person Specification
Post Title – Project Officer (Heritage)
Skills/Knowledge:
MINIMUM ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS
METHOD OF
ASSESSMENT
Project Management
Ability to manage heritage projects in line with SCC’s Project
Management system. Successfully delivering required outputs and
outcomes, keeping cost, time and risk under control.
Apply Sheffield City Council’s project management process
Define, plan and implement projects to achieve agreed outcomes
Collaborative Working
Ability to create and maintain effective working relationships with
individuals, team, colleagues, own and other managers
Commitment to and experience of partnership working, participative
engagement and consultation processes.
Ability to foster local ownership of projects
Communication
Ability to deliver messages, ideas and information in a manner that
promotes understanding to a variety of audiences. Receive (listen),
understand and interpret information from others.
Ability to communicate effectively using all available media, and able
to demonstrate excellent written and oral skills.
Customer Focus
Demonstrate a customer centred culture and improvement of services
to customers
Understand the diversity of customers and seek customer feedback.
Finance and Resource Management
Ability to manage effectively and efficiently all financial and physical
resources to fulfil the organisation’s objectives
Ability to prepare budgets, and monitor, review and control use of
resources
Good skills in fundraising and successful project financing
People Management
Lead and support the work of individuals to achieve the service
objectives. (if allocated staff)
Able to undertake self-development and to support and
encouragement develop of others
Application
Form
Presentation
Interview
4

People Skills
Demonstrate the skills and behaviours underpinning the relationship
between self and others, including colleagues, service users, partners
and other stakeholders
Good interpersonal skills and able to act assertively, behave ethically,
respect diversity and deal with challenging situations
Service Delivery, Improvement and Change
Ability to deliver a quality service to internal and external customers
Ability to innovate to achieve results for the service and the customer
Ability to meet and contribute to services standards
Ability to contribute and support change to improve and develop
services
Personal Style and Behaviour
Commitment to the Council's vision and core values.
Commitment to equality of opportunity, diversity and the promotion of
rights for minority and under-represented groups.
Open management style emphasising the importance of good
communication and empowerment.
Creative, flexible and focused on outcomes.
Political awareness.
Strong awareness of the external environment affecting the provision
of public sector services and the potential for future change.
Experience/Qualifications/Training
Education to degree level (or equivalent) in Green Space
Management, Earth Sciences, Heritage or Archaeology and be able to
demonstrate working with success within the ‘green space’ context
Or be able to demonstrate extensive knowledge in successful heritage
or archaeological project development
Experience and skills in effective programme and project co-ordination
Experience in the role of Client as co-ordinator within a multidisciplinary
team to deliver building and landscape projects.
Experience of successfully completing fund-raising applications to
external funders, recording outputs and other data and completing
monitoring forms and reports as required
Demonstrate the ability to determine priorities, work to deadlines
without close supervision.
Ability to line manage allocated staff as required
Work Related Circumstances
Capacity to work under pressure
Ability to work to specific deadlines
Must be prepared to work flexible hours, including some weekends
and evenings as required
Must be able to attend meetings external to workplace
Application
Form
Presentation
Interview
Application
Form
Presentation
Interview
5

6

Sheffield City Council
Role Profile Description
Date December 2007
Family
Technical
Role profile Level Number
TBC
Purpose
Project Officer
Role Accountability
End Result
Planning
Plan and organise own work to meet set Project/service delivered on time
priorities and deadlines
SLAs (targets, objectives) met
Recommendations made
Decision making enabled
Work Solutions
Develop solutions to complex issues and Practical, effective solutions delivered
organise their implementation
Specifications/standards achieved
Complex decisions resolved
Customer service
Provide technical advice and guidance on Sound constructive advice given
policy/principles/application to internal and Successful solutions agreed
external customers
Input made to Council policy
Compliance
Ensure compliance with Council
Regulations applied appropriately
policies/regulatory framework and apply
relevant rules
Technical/operational risks managed or
minimised
Customers aware of obligations and
actions needed to comply
Reports
Provide reports on complex issues,
representing Council interests internally and
externally
Inputs/reports delivered on time
Issues clearly summarised, progress
and implications reported
People Management
Recruit, train, develop and motivate a small
team of technical consultants
Resource Management
Monitor expenditure against project budget
and technical/professional guidelines
Team technically competent
Technical work fulfilled
Potential overspends flagged in
advance
Project delivered to standards and cost
7

Nature of contacts and relationship (who and the nature of the communications)
Delivery of a single project on behalf of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Working Environment Context (physical, disagreeable, health and safety aspects)
Mainly office based, but possibility of isolated working locations. Some dangerous environments (such
as derelict or unsafe buildings) including where Permits to Work are required e.g. enclosed spaces, or
dangerous materials present (e.g. asbestos). Some unsocial hours to deal with Customer Care issues,
emergencies or disasters
Procedural Context (creativity, discretion, impact, concentration)
Highly flexible and adaptive to respond to range of situations and evaluate possible alternatives for
action. Need to balance use of sources between competing projects. Usually working to tight deadlines.
External impact could be significant, requiring time and resources to remedy, possible loss of political
face and personal/service reputation, with implicit effect on morale and future development of services.
Direction Received
Will be targeted against a single project and will report by exception. Has broad freedom to operate
within agreed service plan, and will provide upward reports on progress.
Key facts and figure ranges (include likely size of any team managed)
Will have small project budget, which they will manage, including valuing and certifying.
Skills, knowledge and qualifications (Formal qualifications typically required. Essential and
generally preferred)
Technical ability equivalent to graduate level required in some areas working towards a specialised
vocational qualification. Project management or interpersonal skills.
Work Knowledge
Up to date knowledge of legislation affecting own area of work, and good knowledge of Council services
and operations
Work Skills and Equipment Operated
May use specialised software at an advanced level, and develop own applications. May also use
specialised testing or analysis equipment, as required.
8

Project Officer, Heritage, notes:
1. 100 word narrative as to why and how you wish to engage existing or new staff
The cultural heritage of the Sheffield Lakelands is rich and diverse. Working at a landscape scale
across natural, cultural (built and Archaeological) and community themes on various projects the
partnership will engage a number of people and be able to call upon others for support. Within the
Partnership there are no employees working at a project level charged directly with archaeology and
cultural heritage. A new post is vital to retain balance and deliver our cultural heritage project.
Sheffield City Council has an existing project officer whose contract is coming to an end, the existing
role is not being retained (signed letter confirming this to follow). This officer has successfully
delivered community cultural heritage / archaeology projects ( e.g Roots of Iron Project
https://rootsofiron.wordpress.com/ ) . The request here is that HLF allow SCC to extend the existing
contract and move the officer to delivery of the cultural heritage project ‘Hidden history’.
2. Post LCAP expectations and redundancy plans
This is a fixed term post, end of LCAP redundancy is a possibility that the City Council is aware of.
Should redundancy be required all costs will be carried by the council.
3. Any HR Policies regarding open recruitment EO etc.
SCC HR Policies to follow
Attached as PDF
4. How you intend to report/evidence expenditure to the SLLP core team.
This will be a salaried post with expenditure evidenced to HLF each quarter through signed (letter
headed paper) declaration of salary and on-costs together with copies of all SCC expenses claims
incurred by the officer.
New Staff posts or new contracts for existing posts or additional hours
5. Job Description for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP
6. Job specification for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP
Attached as PDF
Al of these as PDFs or Word Documents
Deadline 31 st January 2018

1
CULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
Parks and Countryside
Director of Culture and Environment: Paul Billington
Sheffield City Council
Level 3, Westwing,
Moorfoot Building,
Sheffield S1 4PL
Tel: 0114 2053787 Mob : 07966 372022
e-mail: dave.aspinall@sheffield.gov.uk
Your Ref:
Our Ref: DA/29/01/18 Date: 29th January 2018
Dear Heritage Lottery,
Project Officer post- Sheffield’s Parks and Countryside Service
I can confirm that the part-time, temporary Project Officer post currently held by my
colleague Catherine Nuttgens will formally finish on 31 st October 2018. After which I
would like to appoint her to the position of Project Officer (Community Heritage) to assist
in the delivery of the Hidden History project of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership, subject to its success. This will be subject to the necessary Human
Resource checks to comply with lottery funding requirements.
Given Catherine’s experience in delivering Heritage Lottery Projects in the past most
notably the Roots of Iron Project based at Wincobank Hill Fort I would have no hesitation
in extending her employment with the Council for 3 years on a 2.5 day per week contract
to assist in the co-ordination and delivery of this important lottery project.
I trust this meets with your approval
Yours sincerely
Dave Aspinall
Countryside Manager

JOB DESCRIPTION
Job Title:
Responsible to:
Responsible for:
Salary:
Job Ref No:
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership – Assistant
Rangers
Project & Volunteer Officer
n/a
Meets national minimum wage
+ 9% employee pension contribution entitlement
Fixed Term 12 month contract
SLLPAR
OVERALL PURPOSE OF JOB
This career development post offers a unique and exciting opportunity to undertake
work based experience building to develop a practical career in environmental
conservation.
Assistant Rangers will gain work based experience, this is not just about training courses
and certificates it is about real experience in the workplace recorded on the Wildlife Trusts
Competence system and the building of a suitable CV. Each Assistant Ranger will work
with the Wildlife Trust for one year as a member of junior staff undertaking a range of
duties throughout the SLLP projects, in addition they will:
Learn and gain certification in dry stone walling, a skill gap recognised in the
sector.
Work with a youth project or adult engagement project to plan and facilitate an
activity to engage hard to reach people.
Plan and deliver an event for the public on a nature reserve.
Spend up to a month with one of the other partners learning about their work inside
and beyond SLLP.
Work with a community group to design, plan, budget and deliver a stand-alone
project.
In addition to ‘land management’ and ‘community engagement’ the Assistant Ranger will
also spend time with the SRWT departments:
SLLP administration, apply for a small grant, manage a project budget
spreadsheet.
SRWT Membership, as part of the membership legacy project.
SLLP Communication and Engagement Officer creating ‘copy’ for information
sheets and researching / collating at least one ‘local story’

MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES:
Work with the Project and Volunteer Officer across a broad range of Sheffield
Lakeland Projects, gaining the experience and competence required to progress a
career in the heritage sector.
Support a range of practical activities across the Sheffield Lakelands by looking
after shared equipment and materials.
Undertake work-based training carrying out practical conservation management
works on a range of settings including areas of woodland, moorland, grassland and
heathland.
Undertake a programme of training in dry stone walling.
Working with the SLLP Project Team take part in and support a range of
engagement activities, including working with young people and adults.
Outpost locally to a partner organisation in order to widen experience of heritage
employment.
To assist in the planning of conservation tasks including risk assessment, ordering
materials, preparing equipment, booking tools and loading vehicles.
Design and carry out an independent (but supported) projects with non-Wildlife
Trust local group.
In order to create a broad range of experience, work with Sheffield Lakeland staff
and partners to investigate and apply for small grants, carry out a discrete
interpretation project and demonstrate competence of budget management.
To engage with staff, volunteers and members of the public in a professional
manner
To ensure all work is undertaken according to Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife
Trust’s policies including those for health and safety, safeguarding, environmental,
equal opportunities
To undertake any other duties as requested by the supervisor and in line with the
aims of the Working for Nature project.
General Duties
Work to and promote the Trust’s Charitable Objectives, Strategy, policies and
procedures, including the Trust’s culture statement
Undertake any other duties as required by the CEO that are commensurate with
the skills and responsibilities of this post
Where appropriate, promote membership of the Trust
Present a professional image of the Trust at all times

Personal Specification
We expect candidates to be able to demonstrate in their application that they meet the
following specification.
Aged 21 years or over at time of application.
Enthusiastic, committed and passionate about developing a career in the heritage sector
(demonstrated through work, volunteer or leisure experience in areas such as volunteer
ranger, working on nature reserves or other heritage landscapes, domestic gardening or
other wildlife support activities).
Demonstrate a right to live and work in the UK
Knowledge
• Health and safety at work practices when working with tools and undertaking
practical work
• Principals of practical nature conservation or grounds maintenance
• Key considerations for successful delivery of project work.
Qualifications
• Possess a level 3 (A level or NVQ level 3) qualification in a relevant subject
(examples: Ecology, Environment, Biology, History, Archaeology, Countryside
Management).
Desirable
• Possess a level 5 (HND or Foundation Degree) qualification in a relevant subject
(examples: Ecology, Environment, Biology, History, Archaeology, Countryside
Management).
• Full driving licence (essential).
• Trailer towing licence.
• First Aid certificate.
Skills
• Ability to work cooperatively as part of a small team but also independently with
minimal supervision.
• A broad range of practical outdoor activity and skills.
• Good verbal and written communication.
• Ability to plan and organise time including a good track record of attendance and
timekeeping which are important when working as part of a team.
• Confident and able to use hand tools (hammer, bow saw, spade etc).
Personal Qualities
• Physically able to undertake practical work (digging, lifting, carrying etc), alone or
as part of a team on a daily basis
• Ability to work under own initiative.
• High level of enthusiasm, motivation and optimistic outlook.
• Commitment to high levels of customer service.
• A commitment to biodiversity, conservation and the principles of sustainable
development.
• Flexibility to adapt to the working needs of the business.
• A positive and friendly approach and ability to work with people of varying abilities
and from a wide range of backgrounds
• Good level of physical fitness and the ability to work on remote sites not accessible
by vehicle.

ABOUT SHEFFIELD AND ROTHERHAM
WILDLIFE TRUST
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is one of 47 Wildlife Trusts working to make the
United Kingdom a better place for people and wildlife. We are the biggest voluntary sector
nature conservation and environmental regeneration organisation in South Yorkshire,
supported by nearly 6,000 members and many volunteers.
We are part of the local community, working to protect and enhance the environment of
Sheffield and Rotherham for the benefit of people and wildlife. The Trust manages 12
Nature Reserves including Greno Woods, Wyming Brook, Blacka Moor, Sunnybank and
Centenary Riverside and recent projects include the delivery of natural flood risk
management schemes on the Rother and recording the return of the otter along the River
Don. The Trust delivers a great programme of activities throughout the year to inspire
people of all ages to learn about nature and enjoy being outdoors. We also take action for
wildlife and green spaces under threat, including campaigning to save an ancient
woodland and local wildlife site, Smithy Wood, from being turned into a motorway service
station. For more information about our work please visit www.wildsheffield.com or phone
0114 263 4335 or email: mail@wildsheffield.com
With more than 800,000 members, the Wildlife Trusts are the largest UK voluntary
organisation dedicated to conserving the full range of the UK's habitats and species.
Collectively we manage over 2,300 nature reserves covering more than 90,000 hectares.
ABOUT SHEFFIELD LAKELAND LANDSCAPE
PARTNERSHIP
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust has been granted initial approval¹ for a £2.8m
Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) grant to set up a special ‘Landscape Partnership’ aimed at
protecting and improving the city’s unique ‘Sheffield Lakeland’ area.
The project, part of HLF’s Landscape Partnership (LP) programme, will deliver an
exciting programme of activities across an area that stretches from Langsett to
Redmires and from the edge of Sheffield city to the moorland slopes of the Peak District
National Park – an area referred to as Sheffield Lakeland in the 1950s.
Organisations such as Yorkshire Water, Sheffield City Council and Bradfield Parish
Council, as well as community groups, residents, farmers and land owners, have already
expressed their support for the project and will form part of the steering group.
Activities include: managing woodlands, heaths and grasslands to benefit people and
wildlife; improving footpaths and access for all across the area; finding ways to naturally
improve drinking water and reduce flood risk in the city; repairing drystone walls;
celebrating local heritage, music and history; offering farm visits, school and family
activities, strolls for older people; as well providing volunteering and training opportunities
in heritage conservation. There is also a community grant scheme to fund small projects
that help to look after and share local heritage with others.

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary:
Pension:
Working Hours:
Location:
Probationary Period:
Annual Leave:
Length of Contract:
Transport provision:
Equal Opportunities:
DBS required:
Meets national minimum wage
Entry to the Trust's stakeholder pension scheme is available
immediately, with an entitlement to a 1% employer’s contribution
from 3-6 months, and then an entitlement to a 9% employer's
contribution after successful completion of a 6-month
probationary period.
The working week for this post is 37.5hrs, exclusive of lunch
breaks. The post will involve some evening work for which time
off in lieu can be taken. Flexi-time does not apply although
informal arrangements can be made at the Chief Executive’s
discretion.
The post will be based at Victoria Hall, Stafford Road, Sheffield
S2 2SF but is likely to require remote working at locations within
the Sheffield Lakeland area.
All new employees are required to undertake a period of
probation for 6 months, in which they will be expected to establish
their suitability for the post.
20 days holiday, plus 3 days to be taken between Christmas and
New Year, plus bank holidays.
12 months
Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever practical.
(Please read SRWT environmental policy for further guidance).
However the post holder will have use of a pool of Trust vehicles
when needed.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is striving to be an equal
opportunities employer and selection of applicants is based on
merit. Full policy document available on request.
This post may be subject to an enhanced DBS Disclosure.

Trainee Officers
1. 100 word narrative as to why and how you wish to engage existing or new staff
We have a range of project to be delivered directly by the Sheffield Lakeland Partnership, most
notably the restoring the Lattice and the Trainee programme. In addition we have SLLP projects
supporting other groups, including recruiting and training volunteers and developing new projects.
This post is a full time support post incorporated into SLLP core.
2. Post LCAP expectations and redundancy plans
This is a fixed term post but as part of the SLLP Legacy we are looking to create a financially
sustainable woodland management project, a significant benefit would be at least a part time post
emerging from this. However, should redundancy be required we will not be seeking HLF funding to
cover this.
3. Any HR Policies regarding open recruitment EO etc.
Attached as PDF
4. How you intend to report/evidence expenditure to the SLLP core team.
This will be a salaried post with expenditure evidenced to HLF against quarterly claims.
New Staff posts or new contracts for existing posts or additional hours
5. Job Description for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP
6. Job specification for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP

JOB DESCRIPTION
Job Title:
Responsible to:
Responsible for:
Salary:
Job Ref No:
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership – Senior
Communications and Engagement Officer (0.6 FTE)
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Manager
Volunteers (joint)
XXX
+ 9% employee pension contribution entitlement
Fixed Term until October 2022
SLLP
OVERALL PURPOSE OF JOB
To lead on a range of ‘community engagement’ projects and to work with partners to
coordinate the landscape message of the partnership through delivery of these projects
and the SLLP Access (knowledge) and Communications programme
To support the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership (SLLP) Manager in the overall
communications and engagement of the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership.
MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES:
Lead on the delivery of the engagement and communications programme as outlined
in the Landscape Conservation Action Plan (LCAP) and Stage 2 submission to the
Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF).
Work with the Partnership Manager to support the Landscape Partnership Steering
Group, key delivery partners and the wider partnership, ensuring excellent
communication and engagement for all involved.
Work with the Wildlife Trust’s Marketing Manager, develop and deliver a range of
briefing notes, press releases, web pages and social media activity to raise awareness
and secure feedback on the project proposals as they develop.
Work with partners to coordinate the ‘Landscape’ message with core outputs of
“Ecosystem Services’ through various media including a dedicated website.
Liaise with the partners delivering the Community Grant Scheme to link between
partners, HLF and the Finance Officer.

Work with the SLLP Trainees to deliver ‘trainee specific’ communication projects
which can be recorded on trainee competencies.
Assist the SLLP Manager and Finance Officer in the preparation of financial and
project progress reports to meet requirements of the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Trust
and partners.
Promote membership of the Trust and where appropriate recruit new members.
Ensure all work is undertaken in accordance with SRWT's charitable objectives,
strategy, culture statement and policies (e.g. child welfare, environmental, equal
opportunities, corporate style and health and safety policies).
Undertake any other duties, as requested, in line with the level and nature of the post
and the aims of the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust.
General Duties
Work to and promote the Trust’s Charitable Objectives, Strategy, policies and
procedures, including the Trust’s culture statement
Undertake any other duties as required by the CEO that are commensurate with the
skills and responsibilities of this post
Where appropriate, promote membership of the Trust
Present a professional image of the Trust at all times

ABOUT SHEFFIELD AND ROTHERHAM
WILDLIFE TRUST
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is one of 47 Wildlife Trusts working to make the
United Kingdom a better place for people and wildlife. We are the biggest voluntary sector
nature conservation and environmental regeneration organisation in South Yorkshire,
supported by nearly 6,000 members and many volunteers.
We are part of the local community, working to protect and enhance the environment of
Sheffield and Rotherham for the benefit of people and wildlife. The Trust manages 12
Nature Reserves including Greno Woods, Wyming Brook, Blacka Moor, Sunnybank and
Centenary Riverside and recent projects include the delivery of natural flood risk
management schemes on the Rother and recording the return of the otter along the River
Don. The Trust delivers a great programme of activities throughout the year to inspire
people of all ages to learn about nature and enjoy being outdoors. We also take action for
wildlife and green spaces under threat, including campaigning to save an ancient
woodland and local wildlife site, Smithy Wood, from being turned into a motorway service
station. For more information about our work please visit www.wildsheffield.com or phone
0114 263 4335 or email: mail@wildsheffield.com
With more than 800,000 members, the Wildlife Trusts are the largest UK voluntary
organisation dedicated to conserving the full range of the UK's habitats and species.
Collectively we manage over 2,300 nature reserves covering more than 90,000 hectares.
ABOUT SHEFFIELD LAKELAND LANDSCAPE
PARTNERSHIP
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust has been granted initial approval¹ for a £2.8m
Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) grant to set up a special ‘Landscape Partnership’ aimed at
protecting and improving the city’s unique ‘Sheffield Lakeland’ area.
The project, part of HLF’s Landscape Partnership (LP) programme, will deliver an
exciting programme of activities across an area that stretches from Langsett to
Redmires and from the edge of Sheffield city to the moorland slopes of the Peak District
National Park – an area referred to as Sheffield Lakeland in the 1950s.
Organisations such as Yorkshire Water, Sheffield City Council and Bradfield Parish
Council, as well as community groups, residents, farmers and land owners, have already
expressed their support for the project and will form part of the steering group.
Activities planned include: managing woodlands, heaths and grasslands to benefit people
and wildlife; improving footpaths and access for all across the area; finding ways to
naturally improve drinking water and reduce flood risk in the city; repairing drystone walls;
celebrating local heritage, music and history; offering farm visits, school and family
activities, strolls for older people; as well providing volunteering and training opportunities
in heritage conservation. There are also plans for a community grant scheme to fund small
projects that help to look after and share local heritage with others.

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary:
Pension:
Working Hours:
Location:
Probationary Period:
Annual Leave:
XXX per annum pro rata, 0.6 full time equivalent (Senior Project
Officer) – we aim to offer an annual cost of living rise from April
each year.
Entry to the Trust's stakeholder pension scheme is available
immediately, with an entitlement to a 1% employer’s contribution
from 3-6 months, and then an entitlement to a 9% employer's
contribution after successful completion of a 6-month
probationary period.
The working week for this post is 22.5 hrs, exclusive of lunch
breaks. The post will involve some evening work for which time
off in lieu can be taken. Flexi-time does not apply although
informal arrangements can be made at the Chief Executive’s
discretion.
The post will be based at Victoria Hall, Stafford Road, Sheffield
S2 2SF but remote working at locations within the Sheffield
Lakeland area will be required.
All new employees are required to undertake a period of
probation for 6 months, in which they will be expected to establish
their suitability for the post.
20 days holiday, plus 3 days to be taken between Christmas and
New Year, plus bank holidays. Staff will also receive a holiday
bonus of 1 day per year for the first five years of full time service
up to a maximum of 25 days per year.
Length of Contract: Continuation of post until 31 st October 2022
Transport provision:
Equal Opportunities:
DBS required:
Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever practical.
(Please read SRWT environmental policy for further guidance).
However the post holder will have use of a pool of Trust vehicles
when needed.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is striving to be an equal
opportunities employer and selection of applicants is based on
merit. Full policy document available on request.
This post will not require DBS disclosure.

JOB SPECIFICATION
This section deals with the scope, nature and type of work associated with this post, including the
level of decision-making required, the scale of budgets and number of staff managed, and the level
of knowledge and experience expected.
The Communications and Engagement Officer works to deliver a programme of Communication
and interpretation activities and deliver a range of community engagement and arts projects. In
addition the post holder is required to act as a communication conduit across a broad partnership of
partner organisations and contractors to ensure a cohesive outward message.
Working within the team and across the partnership the Officer will support training and capacity
building opportunities for SLLP trainees and volunteers. While not directly Line Managing staff the
role will include day-to-day supervision of trainees undertaking communications projects.
The post holder has both the day to day responsibility for incurring expenditure (up to £500) against
budgets held by a number of other SLLP projects, and for ensuring that appropriate financial
policies and procedures are followed and have direct delegated responsibility for management of
their own expenditure budget lines up to £40,000 per annum. While project proposals and budgets
have been allocated there will be an expectation to seek additional resources and to actively
manage their budgets and contribute to the overall resource package of the Sheffield Lakeland
Common Fund.
The post holder will be expected to work across the Sheffield Lakeland area, throughout the wider
city region and, on occasion across the UK. The substantive office base with be SRWT HQ but
there will be a requirement to be able to locate areas of work with other partners
During the course of their work, the Communications and Engagement Officer is expected to deal
with a wide range of complex, technical or professional work activities in differing situations and with
a substantial degree of personal responsibility and autonomy – particularly in relation to ensuring
the quality of work delivered and training given, across a wide range of tasks and skills, including
ensuring compliance with health & safety, equal opportunities, environmental and other policies and
procedures.
Much of the work of the Communications and Engagement Officer is expected to be carried out with
little supervision from their line manager – particularly the day-to-day management of projects.
They are expected to deal with a range of external contacts, including suppliers, contractors, clients
and the general public, to take part in a range of collective team activities, and occasionally to
communicate with other outside audiences (such as members, funders, etc).
Overall, it is expected that the post holder will be able to demonstrate substantial experience,
knowledge and skills required. Likely demonstrated by 3+ years experience in a parallel role and
appropriate vocational qualification to degree level.
PERSON SPECIFICATION
EXPERIENCE
Essential:
Autonomous project management including budget control and reporting to grant
funders
A minimum of four years experience in developing and delivering a range of
communication, consultation and engagement projects to a wide range of audiences
about the natural and historic environment
Experience of co-ordinating, managing and supporting volunteers and paid staff or
trainees

Experience of engaging and managing contractors and consultants
Experience of developing delivering audience and access plans
Using social media and digital technology to engage people
Desirable:
Experience of Landscape Partnerships
KNOWLEDGE/QUALIFICATIONS
Essential:
Relevant degree in an appropriate discipline
Knowledge of at least two of the following: landscape character, wildlife, nature
conservation, ecology, archaeology, local history
Knowledge of a range of community involvement techniques, consultation and
environmental education activities and techniques - to engage and inspire the general
public in history and nature
Good understanding of health and safety and child welfare principles and procedures
A full driving license or means to travel as required for this post
SKILLS
Essential:
Excellent communicate skills – written, verbal
Budget management skills
Ability to enthuse and motivate others – whether the general public, strategic partners
or specialists
Ability to understand and interpret technical data to communicate key messages to a
wide range of audiences through a variety of media.
Practical IT skills e.g. Microsoft Word, Excel & PowerPoint and relevant data software
Ability to work constructively with people from a wide range of backgrounds
Desirable:
First Aid qualification - preferably First Aid at Work.
PERSONAL QUALITIES
Essential:
Ability to organise and prioritise your own workload effectively
Ability to acquire new knowledge and develop new skills
Professional and flexible

Signed
Date: 23/09/16
Rationale
Sheffield Wildlife Trust
Equality and Diversity Policy
Sheffield Wildlife Trust’s principal asset is its staff, volunteers and trainees.
This policy reflects the importance the Trust attaches to its human resources.
This policy does not form part of any employee's contract of employment and
SWT may amend it at any time.
The Trust will take reasonable steps to discriminate unfairly and unlawfully
against its staff, volunteers and trainees.
This policy has been created in line with The Equality Act 2010, which
makes it illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of the following
the following ‘Protected Characteristics’ :
Age
Disability (physical or mental)
Gender re-assignment.
Marriage and Civil partnership
Pregnancy and Maternity
Race - including ethnic origin, colour, nationality and national origin.
Religion or belief
Sex
Sexual orientation
Trade union membership

Part-time or fixed-term status.
Discrimination may be direct or indirect and it may occur intentionally or
unintentionally. The Equality Act prohibits amongst other things unlawful direct
and indirect, associative and perceived discrimination.
Direct discrimination occurs where someone is put at a disadvantage because of
one of the characteristics set out above. For example, rejecting an applicant of one
race because it is considered they would not "fit in" because of their race could be
direct discrimination.
Indirect discrimination occurs where the effect of certain requirements,
conditions or practices imposed has an adverse impact disproportionately on
one group or another where there is not a genuine occupational requirement.
For example indirect sexual discrimination would occur if an employer imposes
an unjustifiable requirement that a job must be done full time. This would
be indirectly discriminating against women because it is putting them at a
disadvantage compared to men, as women are more likely to be looking to
work part time because they generally bear the primary responsibility for the
care of children and other dependants.
Associative discrimination is discrimination against someone because they
associate with another person possessing a protected characteristic and
perceived discrimination occurs when someone is discriminated against because
another person or people perceive them as having a protected characteristic.
Unlawful conduct also includes victimisation (unfavourable treatment because of
action taken to assert legal rights against discrimination or to assist a
colleague in that regard); harassment and, in the case of disabled employees,
discrimination arising from a disability or a failure to make reasonable
adjustments.
Sheffield Wildlife Trust is committed to achieving equality of opportunity for all
and managing the diversity of its workforce. The Trust’s policies and
procedures will be governed by this commitment to our work force (paid
members of staff, trainees, job applicants and volunteers), to our clients and
to all with whom we have contacts and dealings. This will be achieved by
making efforts in the following areas:
Setting an Equality Action Plan: to monitor and ensure that our
equality and diversity policy is implemented in all areas of the Trusts
activities.
2

Ensure that all workers, including management levels, are aware
of this policy: by putting the policy through an open consultation
process and inducting all new members of staff.
Monitor the diversity of our workforce: by conducting reviews of staff
and volunteers, to find out how far our workforce is representative from the
community from which it is drawn.
Monitor the diversity of our applicants: by collecting equality
monitoring data from our applicants and reviewing the data to assist in
ensuring that our adverts are reaching all sections of the local community
and take appropriate action where necessary.
Continue to monitor and review and up date our capability,
disciplinary and grievance policies and procedures: through the
Human Resources working group, to ensure that any issues relating to
harassment and bullying are dealt with.
Continue to monitor and review our recruitment procedure: through
the Human Resources working group, to ensure that the recruitment and
selection process is based solely upon merit.
Continue to review other relevant policies and procedures: including
the Recruitment of ex-offenders and use of CRB disclosures, Data
Protection and Volunteer policies and procedures.
Deliver Equality & Diversity training: through our induction process
and separate sessions where appropriate.
This policy applies to all positions within Sheffield Wildlife Trust including
employees, trainees and volunteers. The words ‘staff’ and ‘employees’ will be
understood to include volunteers, job applicants and trainees throughout this
policy.
Policy Statement
Sheffield Wildlife Trust is committed to promoting equality of opportunity for all
in all areas of its work and structure. The Trust opposes all forms of
unlawful discrimination and is committed to seeking to ensure that:
No employee, volunteer or service user should experience discrimination,
harassment or bullying on any grounds. Sheffield Wildlife Trust values and
is committed to encouraging and managing diversity.
3

All members of staff, volunteers and Trust service users are treated equally,
fairly and with respect, and are committed to ensuring that no one receives
less favourable treatment than anyone else.
Each member of staff is respected and valued, and is able to give of their
best. We provide a working environment in which individual differences and
contributions are recognised and valued; that is free from harassment and
bullying; and where all decisions and opportunities, regarding selection,
training, development, progression or any other related benefit, will be based
on merit.
We help and encourage all members of staff and volunteers to develop
their full potential, to ensure that the talents and resources of the workforce
are fully utilised, which will maximise the efficiency of our organisation.
This policy is linked to the Trust’s grievance, disciplinary and capability policies
and procedures; the Trust’s Recruitment procedure; Recruitment of Ex-offenders
policy and procedure; Data Protection policy and procedure, personal conduct
guidance; Line Management policy and related procedures and volunteer policy.
Policy Implementation:
Although the ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with this policy lies
with the Trustees, it is the responsibility of all employees and volunteers to
be aware of and implement this policy.
Any actions that go against the spirit or letter of this policy and the Trust’s
Personal Conduct Guidance, including discrimination, bullying and harassment
will be considered seriously and dealt with under the Trust’s grievance and
disciplinary procedure. We encourage anyone who feels they are a victim of
any form of discrimination, bullying or harassment, to report it in accordance
with the Grievance Procedure and to be reassured that any such report will
be dealt with in confidence and taken seriously.
1. Recruitment Practice
1. When recruiting, the Trust’s recruitment procedure should be followed at all
times to ensure that all appointments are made solely on merit and that
the recruitment is justifiable on non-discriminatory grounds.
2. To reach our aim of achieving a diverse workforce that is representative of
the local community from which it is drawn, we will record details of
applicant’s gender, age, ethnicity, faith group and disability. This
information will be used for monitoring purposes only and will not be used
4

for selection purposes. This monitoring will be conducted in accordance
with the Trust’s Data Protection Procedure.
3. The data collected will be analysed annually and the findings reported to
the Human Resources Working Group by the Human Resources Officer.
The Human Resources working group will review the data and identify
positive actions to try and engage any identified under-represented groups.
4. The positive action taken will be aimed at ensuring that knowledge of the
Trusts paid and volunteer vacancies reaches identified under-represented
groups.
5. We will also aim to reach particular groups that experience disadvantage or
discrimination in employment, through our advertising strategy.
6. All vacancy advertisements will include an appropriate short statement on
equal opportunity and all candidates will receive the same information about
the post for which they are applying.
7. Sheffield Wildlife Trust aims to ensure that no applicant receives less
favourable treatment on grounds that are not related to their ability to do
the job.
8. The selection criteria for employment to a vacancy will be based on the
person specification related to that vacancy. The person specification will
be objectively drawn up as part of the recruitment process. This will
ensure that selection is based on justifiable non-discriminatory grounds that
are essential for the effective performance of the job.
9. All reasons for selection/rejection of applicants will be recorded.
10.Wherever possible, and when requested, the Trust will make provisions for
interview attendance.
11.Upon request, the Trust will reschedule interview dates so that they do
not clash with important religious festivals.
12.During the review of the Recruitment procedure that is conducted by the
Human Resources working group every three years, the selection and
recruitment procedure will be reviewed to ensure it complies with the
equality and diversity policy. This review will be done sooner if there are
any relevant changes in equality law.
2. Employment Practice
1. All employees are responsible for working to achieve this policy’s objectives
of promoting equality and tackling discrimination.
2. All members of staff have access to this policy and related policies and
procedures, and are made aware of their existence during their inductions.
5

3. Staff awareness of the Trust’s policies and procedures, especially new staff,
is checked at PPPM meetings.
4. If a member of staff feels that they need more training in the area of
equality and diversity this can be incorporated into their Personal
Development Plan.
5. All members of staff’s job specifications will be updated at Personal
Development Reviews to include under the knowledge section ‘an awareness
of equal opportunities and ability to work in accordance with equal
opportunities principles’.
6. The Trust will work towards ensuring that as far as possible, the workforce
(staff and volunteers) reflects the composition of the wider community in
Sheffield.
7. The Human Resources Officer will do an annual audit of staff’s gender,
age, ethnicity, faith group and disability and will report the findings to the
Human Resources working group. This monitoring will be conducted in
accordance with the Trust’s Data Protection Procedure.
8. The Human Resources working group will review the findings and if
appropriate action is needed they will use the information, in conjunction
with the information relating to that of the diversity of applicants, to take
appropriate positive action.
9. All members of staff, whether part-time or full-time, temporary or permanent,
will receive equality of opportunity in terms of their conditions of
employment, including pay (which is objectively scored from each post's job
description), hours of work, basic holiday entitlement (bonus days are
awarded for length of service), pensions, work allocation, recruitment,
training, promotion, redundancy and retirement. Pay and holiday entitlement
is pro-rata for part-time and temporary staff.
10.The Trust recognises that harassment and discrimination is often the
product of false information and assumptions. Therefore, we aim to provide
information in our library to promote awareness of the needs and interests
of particular groups and individuals, and make people aware of its
existence.
11.Sheffield Wildlife Trust aims to accommodate faith groups and will on
request, and within the limits of the premises, allocate a place for prayers
in the workplace.
12.The Trust will also consult the religious calendar when arranging dates for
major staff conferences/meetings, for example the annual conference; and
will give extra consideration to requests to take leave for important religious
festivals from annual leave allowance or TOIL accumulated.
6

13.The Trust does not have a strict dress code and members of staff may
wear important religious symbols where it is appropriate. It is at the
discretion of the director whether or not a religious symbol is appropriate.
14.Sheffield Wildlife Trust encourages training and development to enhance
potential within employees existing job roles. All members of staff have
the same training budget available and their training needs evaluated
annually with their line manager in their PDP in line with the Trust’s PDP
procedure.
15.All members of staff have their posts reviewed annually in accordance with
the Trusts PDR procedure.
16.We will give full consideration, and accommodate, where possible, in terms
of being consistent with the needs of the organisation, all staff requests to
work flexibly, especially those with carer responsibilities.
17.The Trust aims to make reasonable adjustments where necessary to make
its offices as accessible and useable as possible for everyone.
18.If necessary the requirements of job applicants and existing members of
staff who have, or have had, a disability or medical condition, will be fully
reviewed to ensure that reasonable adjustments are made to enable to
them to enter into, or remain in employment with the Trust.
19.The Trust will not require any of its staff to attend outside premises that
do not meet reasonable standards of access.
20.Every reasonable effort will be made to ensure that disabled members of
staff participate fully in the workforce.
3. Service Delivery
1. Sheffield Wildlife Trust will wherever possible make all its services and
events accessible to all and will identify any practices that are discriminatory
and take positive actions to tackle it.
2. We will ensure that we target our full range of services and publicise our
events, so that all sections of the community, groups and individuals are
aware of them.
3. Publications, interpretative facilities and internal communications will be in an
appropriate media and is therefore as accessible as possible.
4. We will start to monitor attendance at events and the use of our services
to evaluate whether or not we are reaching all sections of the community
and the Community and Volunteer working group will evaluate the results
annually and take positive action where necessary.
7

5. We will work to ensure that our services are provided in a way that
promotes awareness of the rights and needs of particular individuals/groups
and that enables those individuals and groups to have access to them.
6. When designing facilities for sites or events, full consideration will be given
to providing access and furniture to enable access for all, depending on
the constraints of the site concerned. Where appropriate other agencies
will be encouraged to work to provide appropriate supporting services to
help the Trust make such provisions.
7. The Trust will consider any requests for additional provision and will
evaluate the request against the market need.
8. When monitoring the effectiveness of our services and events we will
ensure that views of all individuals/groups are sought and taken into
consideration.
Monitoring & Review
This policy will be monitored and reviewed by the Human Resources working
group every three years, unless changes to the law occur which requires this
policy to be amended sooner.
When reviewing this Policy the Human Resources Working Group will review
and update the Trusts Equality and Diversity Action Plan to ensure that the
Trust is meeting its aims set out in this Policy.
Amended: 11 June 2014
Review Date: 11 June 2017
Andrew McNiven
HR Officer
Policy filing location I/1PP Policies &
Procedures/6HR&People/1Equality,Diversity & Inclusion/1Policy
8

JOB DESCRIPTION
JOB TITLE:
JOB NUMBER:
Finance and Admin Support Officer
SLLP Support
(retained as existing)
DATE:
RESPONSIBLE TO:
RESPONSIBLE FOR:
Salary:
Landscape Partnership Development Manager
n/a
£X (pro rata 0.4 FTE = £X)
+ 9% employee pension contribution entitlement
Fixed Term until October 2022
2. OVERALL PURPOSE OF ROLE
Providing support to the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership (SLLP), to
maintain the partnership budget records and reporting processes between the
Partnership, Lead Partner and Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). To ensure that funding
claims and reports are submitted accurately and on time and that dispersal of the
common fund is managed clearly and promptly.
3. MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES
Support the SLLP Manager and SLLP team by providing administration and
financial support.
Administer the Partnership’s activities, room hire, equipment etc
With support from the Head of Finance and Support Services, ensure the
Partnership works to the Trust’s policies and procedures and meets the
requirements of HLF.
Undertake financial administration and budget support for the Partnership.
Assist in the preparation of funding claims and reports, including the
provision of financial information, supporting documents and proof-reading
prior to submission.
Work to and promote the Trust’s Charitable Objectives, Strategy, policies and
procedures, including the Trust’s culture statement
Where appropriate, promote membership of the Trust
Present a professional image of the Trust at all times

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary:
Pension:
Working Hours:
Location:
Probationary Period:
Senior Admin Officer
Entry to the Trust's stakeholder pension scheme is available
immediately, with an entitlement to a 1% employer’s
contribution from 3-6 months, and then an entitlement to a
9% employer's contribution after successful completion of a
6-month probationary period.
Part-time (0.4 FTE). The post may involve some evening
work for which time off in lieu can be taken. Flexi-time
does not apply although informal arrangements can be
made at the Chief Executive’s discretion.
The post will be based at Victoria Hall, but will require
remote working at locations within the Sheffield Lakeland
area.
All new employees are required to undertake a period of
probation for 6 months, in which they will be expected to
establish their suitability for the post.
Annual Leave: 20 days a year pro rata plus bank holidays pro rata and 3
additional days to cover the period between Christmas and
New Year when the office is closed.
Length of Contract: For the duration of the Delivery Phase (November 2018 –
October 2023).
Transport provision:
Equal Opportunities:
Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever
practical. (Please read SRWT environmental policy for
further guidance). However the postholder will have use of
a pool of Trust vehicles when needed.
Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust is striving to be an
equal opportunities employer and selection of applicants is
based on merit. Please refer to the enclosed policy
document for further details.

PERSON SPECIFICATION
Area A
EXPERIENCE
Experience of restricted grant funding administration preferably Heritage Lottery
Fund – co-ordinating paperwork, supporting project staff to monitor and submit
reports
Experience of providing administrative support to a Partnership, including senior
staff, Councillors etc
Experience of financial administration, working with contractors
Area B
KNOWLEDGE
Relevant vocational qualification and 2 years relevant experience
General finance and office procedures and administrative approaches
General knowledge of Microsoft IT packages including Excel, Word and Outlook
Preferably an understanding of grants and financial processes
Area C
SKILLS
Excellent organisational and co-ordination skills to prioritise competing demands
Excellent written skills to take minutes, write reports, letters etc and present
information clearly, concisely and in a professional manner with attention to
detail
Excellent verbal communication skills to respond to partners, volunteers and the
public
Good ability to work accurately with data and present financial information e.g.
for reports to funding bodies
Area D
PERSONAL QUALITIES
Self-motivated, organised with a systematic approach to work
Creative and enthusiastic – able to encourage and support others
Maintains a high levels of enthusiasm and motivation
Professional and flexible, respects confidentiality is required, diplomatic

Jo Walker JD Narrative
1. 100 word narrative as to why and how you wish to engage existing or new staff
Jo Walker is the current (Development Phase) Finance and Admin Officer, she is engaged
one day per week (0.2 FTE) supporting the development team, putting together the budgets
and designing the reporting systems for delivery. The transfer of Jo to the SLLP team was
agreed by HLF for stage 1 and that the ‘workload’ was backfilled, including engaging new
HR support.
The delivery phase will require additional input and the time and budget requirement is for 2
two days per week (0.4 FTE) on this project. See note from Department Head (Roy Mosley)
2. Post LCAP expectations and redundancy plans
SRWT is a dynamic employer and committed to developing staff roles and responsibilities.
By committing staff to direct project administration rather than ‘general’ administrative roles
within an organisation we believe there will be significant professional development. Our
intention will be to include this in Jo’s PDF framework and make use of these enhanced skills
through the 0.6 FTE retained by SRWT, the long-term expectation would be for Jo to remain
within the Trust post SLLP delivery.
Should there be the requirement for post-delivery redundancy no call will be made on HLF
funding.
4. How you intend to report/evidence expenditure to the SLLP core team.
SRWT will evidence all salary costs through the finance department as with all HLF funded
projects, this will be submitted quarterly through the SLLP claims portal.
5. Job Description for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP
Attached
6. Job specification for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP
Attached
8. Narrative upon what they will do, this is an expansion on what you supplied on the
project narrative
Project Development managers agree:
“It is essential we have some dedicated admin and finance support time (0.4 FTE) for the
life-time of the SLLP in order to successfully underpin delivery of a scheme of this size and
scale. We have the ideal candidate to fulfil this role in house, with the advantage of her
being involved throughout the development phase and more generally very experienced in
working on HLF projects. The 0.4 backfill (0.2 already backfilled) will be covered by a
range of existing staff - in essence we're saying the Trust only needs Jo for 0.6 FTE allowing
the balance of time to be spent on the LP.”

Should we not increase Jo’s direct time across to SLLP we would need to use her anyway to
act as a SRWT conduit to manage the funds and would add this to FCR as ‘administration
support’ rather than direct salary support. It is felt that direct salary support offers greater
‘control’ on actual time and regularity of the officer to SLLP.
9. How you have calculated how much this will
The intention is to ‘employ’ Jo two days per week (0.4 FTE) directly through the SLLP
project and for the SRWT finance team to confirm this against each quarterly claim to
Heritage Lottery Fund.

JOB DESCRIPTION
Job Title:
Responsible to:
Responsible for:
Salary:
Job Ref No:
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Project Manager
Head of Conservation & Land Management
Communications & Engagement Officer, Finance & Admin Support,
Project and Volunteer Officer, Trainees and Volunteers.
XX
+ 9% employee pension contribution entitlement
Fixed Term until October 2022.
SLLPM16
To work to the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership (SLLP), to deliver the
Landscape Character Action Plan (LCAP) as funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF).
MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES:
Co-ordinate and support the SLLP steering group, key delivery partners and the wider
partnership.
Co-ordinate and deliver the LCAP, on time and within budget, ensuring it meets the
needs of the both the partners and HLF.
Project manage the Sheffield Lakeland LCAP, including budget control and team
management.
Manage the budget, adhering to the Trust’s financial procedures and ensuring all cash,
in kind and volunteer contributions are secured and evidenced in accordance with HLF
requirements.
Line manage the Communications & Engagement Officer and Project & Volunteer
Officer, trainees and support the Finance & Admin Support Officer in line with the
Trust’s policies and procedures.
Ensure services are procured appropriately and in accordance with the Trust’s and
HLF rules.
Oversee and co-ordinate a number of contractors and consultants and ensure they
deliver the required outputs on budget and on time.
Ensure all funding claims are submitted accurately and on time, with additional
documentation and evidence provided as required.

Seek additional resources throughout the delivery phase. Work with the Trust’s
fundraising team as required.
Work with the Wildlife Trust CEO and the Head of Conservation & Land Management
to ensure the Steering Group is an effective and positive governance structure.
Work with the Head of Conservation & Land Management and Marketing &
Communications Manager to ensure publicity meets the requirements of the Trust,
partners and HLF.
Support volunteers to assist with the LCAP.
General Duties
Work to and promote the Trust’s charitable objectives, strategy, policies and
procedures, including the Trust’s culture statement.
Undertake any other duties as required by the CEO that are commensurate with the
skills and responsibilities of this post.
Where appropriate, promote membership of the Trust.
Present a professional image of the Trust at all times.

ABOUT SHEFFIELD AND ROTHERHAM
WILDLIFE TRUST
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is one of 47 Wildlife Trusts working to make the
United Kingdom a better place for people and wildlife. We are the biggest voluntary sector
nature conservation and environmental regeneration organisation in South Yorkshire,
supported by nearly 6,000 members and many volunteers.
We are part of the local community, working to protect and enhance the environment of
Sheffield and Rotherham for the benefit of people and wildlife. The Trust manages 12
Nature Reserves including Greno Woods, Wyming Brook, Blacka Moor, Sunnybank and
Centenary Riverside and recent projects include the delivery of natural flood risk
management schemes on the Rother and recording the return of the otter along the River
Don. The Trust delivers a great programme of activities throughout the year to inspire
people of all ages to learn about nature and enjoy being outdoors. We also take action for
wildlife and green spaces under threat, including campaigning to save an ancient
woodland and local wildlife site, Smithy Wood, from being turned into a motorway service
station. For more information about our work please visit www.wildsheffield.com or phone
0114 263 4335 or email: mail@wildsheffield.com
With more than 800,000 members, the Wildlife Trusts are the largest UK voluntary
organisation dedicated to conserving the full range of the UK's habitats and species.
Collectively we manage over 2,300 nature reserves covering more than 90,000 hectares.
ABOUT SHEFFIELD LAKELAND LANDSCAPE
PARTNERSHIP
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust has been granted initial approval¹ for a £2.8m
Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) grant to set up a special ‘Landscape Partnership’ aimed at
protecting and improving the city’s unique ‘Sheffield Lakeland’ area.
The project, part of HLF’s Landscape Partnership (LP) programme, will deliver an
exciting programme of activities across an area that stretches from Langsett to
Redmires and from the edge of Sheffield city to the moorland slopes of the Peak District
National Park – an area referred to as Sheffield Lakeland in the 1950s.
Organisations such as Yorkshire Water, Sheffield City Council and Bradfield Parish
Council, as well as community groups, residents, farmers and land owners, have already
expressed their support for the project and will form part of the steering group.
Activities planned include: managing woodlands, heaths and grasslands to benefit people
and wildlife; improving footpaths and access for all across the area; finding ways to
naturally improve drinking water and reduce flood risk in the city; repairing drystone walls;
celebrating local heritage, music and history; offering farm visits, school and family
activities, strolls for older people; as well providing volunteering and training opportunities
in heritage conservation. There are also plans for a community grant scheme to fund small
projects that help to look after and share local heritage with others.

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary:
Pension:
Working Hours:
Location:
Probationary Period:
Annual Leave:
Length of Contract:
Transport provision:
Equal Opportunities:
DBS required:
£XX per annum, full time (Programme Manager) – we aim to offer
an annual cost of living rise from April each year. This salary will
be reviewed at the end of the Development Phase.
Entry to the Trust's stakeholder pension scheme is available
immediately, with an entitlement to a 1% employer’s contribution
from 3-6 months, and then an entitlement to a 9% employer's
contribution after successful completion of a 6-month
probationary period.
The working week for this post is 37.5hrs, exclusive of lunch
breaks. The post will involve some evening work for which time
off in lieu can be taken. Flexi-time does not apply although
informal arrangements can be made at the Chief Executive’s
discretion.
The post will be based at Victoria Hall, Stafford Road, Sheffield
S22SF but is likely to require remote working at locations within
the Sheffield Lakeland area.
All new employees are required to undertake a period of
probation for 6 months, in which they will be expected to establish
their suitability for the post.
20 days holiday, plus 3 days to be taken between Christmas and
New Year, plus bank holidays. Staff will also receive a holiday
bonus of 1 day per year for the first five years of full time service
up to a maximum of 25 days per year.
For the duration of he Delivery Phase (estimated to end October
2022), subject to successful stage 2 submission and funding.
Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever practical.
(Please read SRWT environmental policy for further guidance).
However the post holder will have use of a pool of Trust vehicles
when needed.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is striving to be an equal
opportunities employer and selection of applicants is based on
merit. Full policy document available on request.
None

JOB SPECIFICATION
This section deals with the scope, nature and type of work associated with this post, including the
level of decision-making required, the scale of budgets and number of staff managed, and the level
of knowledge and experience expected.
The SLLP Project Manager works to deliver the agreed Landscape Conservation Action Plan
(LCAP), support other staff and partners throughout the project period and help develop a sustained
legacy from the project for the area and the partnership.
Working within the team and across the partnership the Project Manager will support capacity
building opportunities for SLLP partners.
The Project Manager will directly Line Manage the Communications & Engagement Officer and
Project & Volunteer Officer. Additional staff employed within the project is restricted to one trainee
post per year, line managed by the Practical & Volunteer Officer.
The post holder has both the day to day responsibility for incurring expenditure (up to £5,000)
against budgets held by a number of SLLP projects, and for ensuring that appropriate financial
policies and procedures are followed and have direct delegated responsibility for management of
their own expenditure budget lines up to £1,000,000 per annum. While project proposals and
budgets have been allocated there will be an expectation to seek additional resources and to
actively manage budgets and contribute to the overall resource package of the Sheffield Lakeland
Common Fund.
The post holder will be expected to work across the Sheffield Lakeland area, throughout the wider
city region and, on occasion across the UK. The substantive office base with be SRWT HQ but
there will be a requirement to travel within and beyond Sheffield City Region.
During the course of their work, the Project Manager is expected to undertake a wide and often
unpredictable range of work situations, together with responsibility for other people’s work and their
allocation of substantial resources. They are expected to deal with a range of external contacts,
including suppliers, contractors, clients and the general public, to take part in a range of collective
team activities, and occasionally to communicate with other outside audiences (such as members,
funders, etc.).
Much of the work of the Project Manager is expected to be carried out with little supervision from
their line manager – particularly the day-to-day management of projects.
Overall, it is expected that the post holder will be able to demonstrate extensive experience,
knowledge and skills, including at least five years professional experience at a similar level of
responsibility.

PERSON SPECIFICATION
EXPERIENCE
Essential:
At least 5 years relevant experience of landscape scale conservation development and
project management.
Experience of developing and managing complex partnership projects and working
with senior officers in a variety of organisations
Experience of managing a complex partnership budget of a similar scale (the budget
will be £3-4mln over the life of the project)
Experience of staff management
Experience of working with consultants, procurement and contract management
Experience of, and a commitment to, heritage conservation advocacy and delivery.
Desirable
Experience of successfully delivering a Stage 2 Landscape Partnership project.
KNOWLEDGE/QUALIFICATIONS
Essential:
Degree/equivalent qualification in conservation or related discipline and a relevant
postgraduate qualification
Excellent understanding of nature conservation, ecology and land management issues,
Good knowledge of at least two of the following: landscape character, woodland
management, archaeology, rights of way, outreach, access and engagement, wildlife
and species protection.
Good understanding of partnership working and the different agencies involved.
Good working knowledge of contract processes, method statements, H&S procedures
etc
Desirable
Excellent understanding of natural heritage in north west Sheffield
SKILLS
Essential:
Excellent project and financial management skills
Ability to organise and prioritise your own workload effectively and that of others.
Ability to negotiate effectively and work productively with partners, even when dealing
with complex and/or contentious issues.
Ability to build partnerships and inspire confidence and gain support among local
authorities, government agencies, private companies, voluntary bodies, groups and
individuals.
Excellent communication and interpersonal skills - especially the ability to write and
speak clearly, concisely and with enthusiasm to a wider range of audiences.
Full driving licence or appropriate means to travel for this job.
Ability to use IT effectively (internet, email, word-processing and spreadsheets).
PERSONAL QUALITIES
Essential:
Ability to think strategically.
Ability to acquire new knowledge and develop new skills.
Professional and flexible.
Highly motivated and enthusiastic with an ability to enthuse and motivate others.
Ability to work under pressure and to deadlines

JOB DESCRIPTION
1. IDENTIFICATION OF JOB
JOB TITLE:
SLLP Senior Project and Volunteer Officer
JOB NUMBER:
RESPONSIBLE TO:
RESPONSIBLE FOR:
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership Manager
Volunteers and trainees.
Salary:
XXX
+ 9% employee pension contribution entitlement
Fixed Term until October 2022
2. OVERALL PURPOSE OF JOB
To lead and mentor volunteers and trainees to implement a range of practical conservation and
associated environmental and heritage activities across the Sheffield Lakeland area and
partnership. To coordinate the development of a wider volunteer range of opportunities across the
partnership, helping to broaden both the range of volunteers and the roles and activities available
to them.
3. MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES:
(i)
(ii)
To work with the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership (SLLP) Manager and
team in planning and delivering a range of projects as described in the SLLP
Landscape Conservation Action Plan (LCAP).
With the support of the Wildlife Trust HR Officer to recruit and manage the work
programmes of trainees for the SLLP programme. Line manage and mentor one
trainee per-year with a view to building a broad ranging environmental
employment experience portfolio.

(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
Work with the Wildlife Trust HR Officer, and others, to coordinate opportunities
and support for volunteers across the partnership. Recruit and manage
volunteers to support the SLLP project building volunteer capacity across the
partnership.
Coordinate with the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust (SRWT) Training
Officer (a separate HLF funded initiative care will be taken to ensure clarity of
funding.) to add value to each other’s programmes by offering experience
opportunities across the partnership.
Work with Woodland Heart partners and the Community Ecologist to develop a
‘community’ based woodland management strategy for the Sheffield Lakelands
with an aim of achieving financial sustainability for woodland conservation work.
To undertake & document regular safety checks of SRWT vehicles, tools,
equipment and machinery and maintain as necessary.
With the support of the Finance and Administration officer manage the training
and volunteer and restoring the lattice budget lines and coordinate the
“Supporting Local Groups” projects and budgets.
Alongside the HR Officer, develop and support the personal and career
development of SRWT volunteers and trainees etc. through structured induction,
internal recognition of skills and personal development opportunities together
with certified training where appropriate.
To ensure that all work undertaken is delivered according to the policies and
procedures of SRWT – including those concerning Health & Safety, Equality and
Diversity, Safeguarding Children and Vulnerable Adults, Procurement and
Environment.
To carry out any other duties appropriate to the grade of the post and the
objectives of SLLP partnership, as requested by the department’s programme
manager.
Undertake any other duties, as requested by senior managers and
commensurate with the aims of Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust.
Work to and promote the Trust’s charitable objectives, strategy, policies and
procedures, including the Trust’s culture statement at all times.
Present a professional image of the Trust at all times.

JOB SPECIFICATION
This section deals with the scope, nature and type of work associated with this post, including
the level of decision-making required, the scale of budgets and number of staff managed,
and the level of knowledge and experience expected.
The Project and Volunteer Officer works to deliver a programme of practical tasks across the
SLLP portfolio of projects, recruiting and supervising a small team of trainees and volunteers.
The post holder has both the day to day responsibility for incurring expenditure (up to £200)
against budgets held by a number of other SLLP projects, and for ensuring that appropriate
financial policies and procedures are followed and have direct delegated responsibility for
management of their own expenditure budget lines up to £50,000 per annum.
During the course of their work, the post holder is expected to deal with a variety of mainly
complex and non-routine work activities in differing situations, and often with considerable
responsibility and autonomy – particularly in relation to ensuring the quality of work delivered
and training given, across a wide range of tasks and skills, including ensuring compliance
with health & safety, equal opportunities, environmental and other policies and procedures.
Much of the work of the Project and Volunteer Officer is expected to be carried out with little
supervision from their line manager – particularly the day-to-day management of projects and
trainees. This will require them to manage and support the members of their team for a
significant part of the working week.
They are expected to deal with a range of external contacts, including suppliers, contractors,
clients, partners and the general public, to take part in a range of collective team activities,
and occasionally to communicate with other outside audiences (such as members, funders,
etc).
Overall, it is expected that the post holder will have at least 2 years of appropriate relevant
experience, and a vocational qualification equivalent to NVQ 4, or above.

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary:
Project Officer ull time. £XX per annum pro rata.
Pension: All staff who earn over £192 per week (£833 per month) are over 22
and under pensionable age, are automatically enrolled on the SRWT
pension scheme. Following a 3 month postponement, SRWT will
contribute 1% salary which the employee must match. After 6
month’s service, the employee will be entitled to a 9% contribution
which need not be matched. Anyone who does not meet eligibility
criteria will have the opportunity to join the scheme should they wish,
although they will not qualify for SRWT contributions.
Working Hours:
Location:
The working week for this post is 37.5 hours. The post will involve
some evening and weekend work for which time off in lieu can be
taken. Flexi-time does not apply although informal arrangements
can be made at the CEO’s discretion.
The post will work out of the Trust headquarters, at Victoria Hall. A
substantial amount of time to be spent out of doors delivering
projects in the Sheffield Lakeland area on Trust nature reserves,
partners’ landholdings and 3 rd party sites.
Probationary Period: All new employees are required to undertake a period of probation
for 6 months, in which they will be expected to establish their
suitability for the post.
Annual Leave:
20 days holiday per annum pro rata, plus 3 days to be taken
between Christmas and New Year and bank holidays. Staff also
receive a holiday bonus of 1 day per year for the first five years of full
time service up to a maximum of 25 days per year.
Length of Contract: Fixed Term until September 2022
Transport provision:
Equal Opportunities:
DBS Assessment:
Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever practical.
(Please read SRWT environmental policy for further guidance).
However the postholder will have use of a pool of Trust vehicles
when needed and a crew cab or 4x4 for site days.
SRWT is an equal opportunities employer and selection of
applicants is based on merit. Please refer to the enclosed policy
document for further details.
This will not require a DBS check at a standard level.

PERSON SPECIFICATION
This section deals with the knowledge, skills and expertise required for the post. Please note
it is not expected that candidates will necessarily have skills and experience in all of
the areas detailed, but this list will be used as a guide to assess suitability for the post.
Area A
EXPERIENCE
Essential
Overall it is expected that the post holder will have at least two years of
appropriate relevant experience of:
1. Practical conservation on nature reserves, green space and access
management, managing tools and equipment, planning and budgeting
projects, reporting to funders, creating interpretative literature and
communicating with the public..
2. Managing, motivating and supervising trainees and volunteers.
3. Manage recording and monitoring systems for volunteers and trainees.
Desirable
Experience of assessing certificated training or willingness to undergo training
to meet requirements during the first year of the post.
Area B
KNOWLEDGE/QUALIFICATIONS
Essential
A vocational qualification equivalent to NVQ4, or above.
Full driving license.
A good understanding of health and safety principles and procedures.
Support of trainees and volunteers through training and skills development
First Aid at Work certificate or willingness to undertake training in this.
A good understanding of nature conservation and ecology.
An understanding of practical site management issues.
Area C
SKILLS
Essential
Practical conservation skills in at least three of the following: construction and
maintenance of fences; footpaths; ponds; tree planting; tree felling, dry stone walling.
Strong leadership and organisational skills.
Good communication and interpersonal skills.
Ability to work co-operatively as part of a team.
Ability to recruit, support and mentor trainees and volunteers.
Project management skills
Tool and equipment repair and maintenance skills.
Budget management.
Good verbal and written communication – including tact and diplomacy.

Area D
PERSONAL QUALITIES
Essential
Ability to motivate and enthuse people.
Ability to work supportively with a wide range of people on different levels.
A careful and safe approach.
Positive and friendly approach.
A sense of initiative to solve practical problems.
Ability to be tactful & diplomatic when dealing with public enquiries & complaints.
Ability to work under own initiative and meet deadlines.
Good level of physical fitness and the ability to work safely on semi-remote sites.
Acts with integrity and professionalism at all times.
Enthusiastic and personal commitment to the work of Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife
Trust.

JOB DESCRIPTION
1. IDENTIFICATION OF JOB
JOB TITLE: Sessional worker (to support Wild at Heart Project)
JOB NUMBER:
RESPONSIBLE TO:
RESPONSIBLE FOR:
3/CE&L March17
Wild at Heart Project officer
supporting Volunteers
2. OVERALL PURPOSE OF JOB
To work with the Wild at Heart project team to plan and deliver hobby based environmental
and wildlife-related activities for older adults.
The regular programme will support local people to take up a new hobby or interest with an
environmental focus. This will help them to make new friends and give them the confidence
to get out and about in their local community. They will be given opportunities to experience,
learn about and understand nature through local green spaces and woodlands across
Sheffield and Rotherham.
3 MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES:
To assist in planning suitable workshops and activities with a ‘hobby’ based
approach to engage older people in environmental activities
To lead on delivery of sessions on your own, but also assist in the delivery of
additional sessions with volunteer support.
To assist in producing posters and other marketing materials including displays
for events to promote the project in line with Big lottery guidelines
To assist in ensuring the Sheffield and Rotherham website is kept up to date with
information about activities and the project
To assist in ensuring the project is publicised through other social media outlets
in line with Big Lottery and SRWT guidelines
To evaluate all activities in line with Big lottery and SRWT requirements
To record attendances at sessions and update monitoring spreadsheets as
required by Big Lottery and for SRWT internal processes.
To ensure other monitoring of sessions is carried out in line with Big lottery
requirements and SRWT
To support and attend advisory group meetings
To assist in planning and delivering a city wide celebration event/partnership
event towards the end of the project, to celebrate individual achievements and
disseminate the successes and lessons learnt
To raise purchase orders and invoices as required against the project.

To ensure accurate records are maintained around income and expenditure of
the project although there is no direct budget responsibility.
Other Duties
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Ensure all work is undertaken to SRWT’s policies and procedures (eg.
safeguarding children, environmental and health and safety policies)
Undertake any other duties, as requested by your line manager, commensurate
with the aims of Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Promote SRWT and membership of the Trust and at all times act as a champion
and ambassador for the charity, exemplifying our organisation’s culture
statement.

OVERVIEW
About the Trust:
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is one of 47 Wildlife Trusts working to make the
United Kingdom a better place for people and wildlife. We are the biggest voluntary sector
nature conservation and environmental regeneration organisation in South Yorkshire,
supported by nearly 6,000 members and many volunteers.
We are part of the local community, working to protect and enhance the environment of
Sheffield and Rotherham for the benefit of people and wildlife. The Trust manages 12 Nature
Reserves including Greno Woods, Wyming Brook, Blacka Moor, Sunnybank and Centenary
Riverside and recent projects include the delivery of natural flood risk management schemes
on the Rother and recording the return of the otter along the River Don. The Trust delivers a
great programme of activities throughout the year to inspire people of all ages to learn about
nature and enjoy being outdoors. We also take action for wildlife and green spaces under
threat, including campaigning to save an ancient woodland and local wildlife site, Smithy
Wood, from being turned into a motorway service station. For more information about our
work please visit www.wildsheffield.com or phone 0114 263 4335 or email:
mail@wildsheffield.com
With more than 800,000 members, the Wildlife Trusts are the largest UK voluntary
organisation dedicated to conserving the full range of the UK's habitats and species.
Collectively we manage over 2,300 nature reserves covering more than 90,000 hectares.
Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust’s Wild at Heart Project
Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust has been delivering Environmental Education, Youth
Participation and Community Engagement/Family Learning projects across Sheffield and
Rotherham for over 20 years. The Wild at Heart project was developed in response to local
demand for additional activities for older and other vulnerable adults. The project is funded
by the Big Lottery Fund.
This post will report directly to the Wild at Heart project officer to provide additional support
and increase capacity around delivery of workshops and activities and ensure maximum
publicity for the project, through designing posters, leaflets, keeping the SRWT website up to
date and other social media. They will not have any direct budget responsibility but must
ensure receipts are kept for petty cash expenditure.
Overall it is expected that the post holder will have at least 1 year of appropriate relevant
experience in community engagement, particular with regards to supporting the needs of
older people, and an academic qualification of at least a level 3 in Social care/ supporting
older people or community engagement and have a good knowledge and an interest in the
natural environment. They must have a clear understanding of the health issues which effect
older people and reducing social isolation.
Due to the nature of the job occasional evening and weekend work will be required and a
driving licence would be essential, although public transport should always be used when
practical.
The post-holder will be based at Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust's Headquarters, at
Victoria Hall, Stafford Road, and Sheffield.
The project will be delivering outreach work engaging local people across Sheffield and
Rotherham.

PERSON SPECIFICATION
Area A
EXPERIENCE
At least 1 year experience of working with community groups and volunteers,
particularly with older people
Experience of organising and delivering events and activities with an environmental
focus
Experience in producing marketing and publicity materials
Experience of running suitable activities which engage people in the natural
environment
Area B
KNOWLEDGE AND QUALIFICATIONS
Qualified to at least level 3 in a relevant community engagement qualification (ie
Social care/ supporting older people or community engagement)
A good Knowledge of the natural environment and how it can provide health
benefits
Good knowledge of community involvement and the health issues affecting older
people
Good understanding of how to support volunteers
Good understanding of health and safety including assessing the risk benefits of
activities
Area C
SKILLS
First aid at work
Holds a full driving licence
Able to use IT effectively (word processing, excel spreadsheets, publisher, outlook)
Able to update the SRWT website and promote activities through social media
Able to communicate clearly, both verbally and in writing to groups as well as
individuals
Group facilitation skills
Area D
PERSONAL QUALITIES
Committed to nature conservation
Ability to motivate, enthuse and work supportively with a range of people on different
levels
Ability to liaise effectively and build good relationships with a range of individuals and
organisations.
Has an organised approach to work and excellent time management.
Is enthusiastic, positive, and friendly and has a safe approach to working.
Flexible work pattern – able to work evenings and weekends as required

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary: £ 9.51 per hour APO 1 grade
Pension:
Working Hours:
Location:
Entry to the Trust's stakeholder pension scheme is available
immediately, with an entitlement to a 9% employer's contribution
after a six-month probationary period.
The working week for this post is 4 hours per week exclusive of lunch
breaks. The post may involve occasional evening and weekend
work for which time off in lieu can be taken. Flexi-time does not
apply although informal arrangements can be made at the Director’s
discretion.
The post will be based at the Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust,
37 Stafford Road, Sheffield However it is expected that the post
holder will visit other SRWT premises and project sites and will work
throughout Sheffield and Rotherham
Probationary Period: All new employees are required to undertake a period of probation
for 6 months, in which they will be expected to establish their
suitability for the post.
Annual Leave:
Length of Contract:
Transport provision:
20 days holiday, plus 3 days to be taken between Christmas and
New Year, plus bank holidays pro rata. Staff will also receive a
holiday bonus of 1 day per year for the first five years of full time
service up to a maximum of 25 days per year. Annual leave
entitlement is pro rata for all part time staff.
This post fixed term for 6 months (continuation after this time will be
subject to funding).
Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever practical.
(Please read SRWT environmental policy for further guidance).
However the post holder will have use of a pool of Trust vehicles
when needed.
Equal Opportunities: Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust is striving to be an equal
opportunities employer and selection of applicants is based on merit.
Please refer to the enclosed policy document for further details.

We are fortunate to receive many applications for vacant posts and we strongly advise
all applicants to read these guidance notes before completing the application form.
GUIDANCE NOTES FOR COMPLETING YOUR
APPLICATION FORM
i) It is our intention to appoint the best candidate for every vacancy and to do this fairly
we need all applicants to provide relevant information about themselves. This
information should relate directly to the requirements of the job, which are listed in the
enclosed Person Specification and which are regarded as essential in order to work
effectively in post.
ii)
iii)
iv)
Your application form should provide us with as much relevant information as possible.
You should not assume that the interview panel will be familiar with the type of work /
activities you have experienced in the past and therefore, you should provide detailed
information.
Please complete all sections of the form. It may be helpful to do a rough draft first.
Please write as clearly as possible.
Section 4 of the form asks for relevant training and qualifications. We do not need a
full account of your education here but please mention qualifications and / or training
which are necessary or relevant (if any) to the job.
Section 7, Additional Information is the most important part of the form. You should
refer to the Person Specification and provide detailed information under appropriate
headings so we can make an assessment of your suitability.
This information is used to score applications for interview selection. The trick is to
demonstrate how you fulfil the person specification - you need to prove your suitability
not just state it.
If you do not use headings the interview panel may have difficulty in determining your
suitability for the post and, therefore, it is unlikely that you will be selected for interview.
vi)
vii)
Curriculum Vitae (CV’s) can be sent although they cannot replace the application
form. However, if you feel that there is additional relevant information on your CV
which is not covered on the application then you may wish to send your CV highlighting
that information
If there are any aspects of the job where you would like further information, please ring
Linda Baldwin – Community Engagement and Learning Manager on 0114 263 4335.

THE SELECTION PROCESS
i) The interview panel is responsible for the selection process and it consists of SRWT’s
Community Engagement and Learning Manager Linda Baldwin, Jenny King Wild at
Heart project officer
ii)
.
iii)
A selection schedule is determined in advance so that recruitment may proceed in a
timely manner. Key dates are identified for the receipt of application forms (the closing
date), the selection of applicants for interview (short listing) and interviews.
The interview panel meet shortly after the closing date to study the returned application
forms and compile a shortlist of applicants.
The closing date for receipt of application forms 18 th April 2017
Please note: We cannot consider late applications. If you would like us to confirm
receipt of your form please enclose a SAE.
iv)
The interview panel compare the information provided on the application form to the
requirements of the job, as listed in the person specification. The most suitable
applicants (those who meet all or most of the requirements) are invited to attend an
interview.
Unfortunately, we do not have the resources to respond to those candidates who have
not been short listed and if you have not heard from us within three weeks of the closing
date you should assume that your application has not been successful on this occasion.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN WORKING FOR THE SHEFFIELD & ROTHERHAM
WILDLIFE TRUST
WE LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING YOUR APPLICATION FORM
EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY POLICY
Sheffield Wildlife Trust is committed to achieving equality of opportunity for all and managing
the diversity of its workforce. The Trust’s policies and procedures will be governed by this
commitment to our work force (paid members of staff, trainees and volunteers), to our clients
and to all with whom we have contacts and dealings.
The above is taken from the Trusts Equality and Diversity Policy. If you would like a copy of
our full Equality and Diversity Policy please contact the HR Officer on 0114 279 2651 or email
recruitment@wildsheffield.com.

JOB DESCRIPTION
JOB TITLE:
Connecting Steps Project officer
JOB NO:
RESPONSIBLE TO :
RESPONSIBLE FOR:
Community, Education and Learning (CEL)
Manager
Volunteers, Assistant project officer
OVERALL PURPOSE OF JOB
To plan and deliver a programme of activities to engage adults from across Sheffield in the
Sheffield Lakeland area.
To work with other partner organisations within the Sheffield Lakeland partnership to help
signpost participants onto other projects.
MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES
To plan and deliver a programme of activities across key locations in the Sheffield Lakeland to
engage adults in the natural environment.
To provide ongoing support to under-represented groups who would not normally engage in
this type of activity ie Chinese elders community, refugees, new arrivals
To provide line management and support to assistant project officer and volunteers on the
project.
To work with the Community Engagement and Learning Manager to ensure the project
continues to support local and national strategies.
To carry out regular consultation with local stakeholders to ensure activities are relevant and
engaging.
To signpost participants onto other opportunities ie volunteering
To ensure project is publicised and promoted in line with Heritage Lottery guidelines through
local and national media and the Wildlife Trust’s website
To ensure the project is monitored on a regular basis
To evaluate sessions on a regular basis.
To complete annual reporting to ensure project is meeting its intended outcomes
To plan and deliver a city wide celebration event/partnership event towards the end of year 5,
to celebrate individual achievements and disseminate the successes and lessons learnt

To raise purchase orders and invoices as required against the project
To recruit volunteers to the project to help with events and activities and provide ongoing
support.
To support networking opportunities to maximise engagement in the project.
To ensure accurate records are maintained around income/expenditure for the project and
ensure expenditure is kept on track to ensure any under spend or over spend is avoided.
To ensure that all work undertaken is delivered in accordance with the policies and procedures
of Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust – including those concerning health and safety, equal
opportunities, procurement and environment.
To work initially with the Community Engagement and Learning Manager to manage the
budget for the project (£30K per annum).
To promote membership of SRWT and where appropriate recruit new members.
To undertake any other duties, as requested by the Chief Executive, or the CEL Manager in
line with the level of the post and the aims of the project

JOB SPECIFICATION
ABOUT SHEFFIELD AND ROTHERHAM WILDLIFE
TRUST
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is one of 47 Wildlife Trusts working to make
the United Kingdom a better place for people and wildlife. We are the biggest
voluntary sector nature conservation and environmental regeneration organisation in
South Yorkshire, supported by nearly 6,000 members and many volunteers.
We are part of the local community, working to protect and enhance the environment
of Sheffield and Rotherham for the benefit of people and wildlife. The Trust manages
12 nature reserves including Greno Woods, Wyming Brook, Blacka Moor, Sunnybank
and Centenary Riverside and recent projects include the delivery of natural flood risk
management schemes on the Rother and recording the return of the otter along the
River Don. The Trust delivers a great programme of activities throughout the year to
inspire people of all ages to learn about nature and enjoy being outdoors. We also
take action for wildlife and green spaces under threat, including campaigning to save
an ancient woodland and local wildlife site, Smithy Wood, from being turned into a
motorway service station. For more information about our work please visit
www.wildsheffield.com or phone 0114 263 4335 or email mail@wildsheffield.com
With more than 800,000 members, the Wildlife Trusts are the largest UK voluntary
organisation dedicated to conserving the full range of the UK's habitats and species.
Collectively we manage over 2,300 nature reserves covering more than 90,000
hectares.
ABOUT CONNECTING STEPS
The Connecting Steps project is funded by Heritage Lottery Fund. The aim of the
project is to encourage more people to visit, enjoy and use the Sheffield Lakeland
green spaces, woodlands, reservoirs and interesting landscapes and history.
The aim of the project is to reach people who are not currently accessing the
countryside by supporting the work of existing community groups – including local
community groups, refugee groups, those working with new arrivals and other
vulnerable or isolated people.
Connecting Steps will extend the reach of these groups into the countryside-based
activities in the programmes they offer to their members.
The project aims to engage with 8 community groups each year offering an
orientation programme of places and activities to suit their needs. A regular
programme of activity visiting a number of locations across the Sheffield Lakelands.

ABOUT THE ROLE
This role sits within the Community Engagement and Learning Team at Sheffield and
Rotherham Wildlife Trust.
The role will involve planning and delivering a programme of nature based activities
and visits to the Sheffield Lakeland areas. It will also involve promoting the project to
a wide audience using a variety of marketing techniques.
The post holder will also work with partner organisations who have shown an interest
in the project including new arrivals and refugees. They will need to be aware of
the wide ranging activities happening across the Sheffield Lakelands to help signpost
people to other activities that may interest them.
The post holder will be directly line manged by the Community Engagement and
Learning Manager, who will provide that additional support to ensure the project
outcomes are achieved.
The ideal person will be outgoing and personable and have experience of delivering
projects mainly in an outdoor setting to mainly adults.
The successful person will need to demonstrate appropriate and effective
communication skills and be flexible to meet the needs of the community.
A knowledge of how to engage disadvantaged groups in the natural environment is
essential. Experience of working and leading groups outdoors in a variety of settings
is also important.
The role will be based between our office, Stafford Road, Sheffield and various
locations across the Sheffield Lakelands.
The post holder will be expected to manage a budget of £30K per annum.
They will be responsible for directly line managing other delivery staff and volunteers
as well as project monitoring and reporting in line with HLF guidelines and the wider
Sheffield Lakeland Partnership.

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary:
Pension:
PO Grade
Entry to the Trust's stakeholder pension scheme is available
immediately, with an entitlement to a 9% employer's
contribution after a six-month probationary period.
Employees already in the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife
Trust's Final Salary Pension Scheme at the time it was
closed to new entrants will be entitled to continue their
membership of that scheme, and to receive an employer's
contribution of 11%, subject to the employee also making a
contribution of 5%.
Working Hours:
Location:
The working week for this post is 0.4FTE exclusive of lunch
breaks. The post will involve some evening and weekend
work for which time off in lieu (TOIL) can be taken. Flexitime
does not apply although informal arrangements can be
made at the Chief Executive’s discretion (and most
reasonable requests for non-standard working arrangements
can be accommodated within the Trust’s policy on TOIL, and
are given positive consideration).
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust Headquarters,
Victoria Hall, 37 Stafford Road, Sheffield. This is accessible
by bus services.
Probationary Period:
Annual Leave:
All new employees are required to undertake a period of
probation for 6 months, in which they will be expected to
establish their suitability for the post.
20 days a year plus bank holidays and 3 additional days to
cover the period between Christmas and New year when the
office is closed.
Length of Contract: permanent subject to funding (the funding for this project
ends 2023)
Transport provision:
Equal Opportunities:
Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever
practical. (Please read SWT environmental policy for further
guidance). A pool of vehicles is provided for use, when
necessary.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is striving to be an
equal opportunities employer and selection of applicants is
based on merit. Please refer to the enclosed policy
document for further details.

PERSON SPECIFICATION
This section deals with the knowledge, skills and expertise required for the post.
Please note it is not expected that candidates will necessarily have skills and
experience in all of the areas detailed, but this list will be used as a guide to assess
suitability for the post.
Area A
EXPERIENCE
Essential:
Experience of working with community groups and volunteers
Experience of organising events and activities
Experience of motivating, engaging and supporting older people or those who feel
isolated
Experience of supervising, managing and motivating volunteers and staff
Experience of community consultation techniques
Preferred:
Experience of producing marketing and publicity materials
Experience of running activities which engage people in the natural environment.
Experience of basic administration and financial management
Area B
KNOWLEDGE
Essential:
knowledge of how the natural environment can provide health benefits.
A good understanding of community involvement and the health issues affecting older
people.
At least 2 years experience of engaging older people through a variety of interventions
Knowledge of Sheffield and the community boundaries
Qualified to at least level 3 in Social care/Supporting older people or Community
Development/Engagement
Preferred:
Understanding of nature conservation and ecology and biodiversity action planning
A good understanding of issues relating to the involvement of volunteers
A good understanding of health and safety.
Area C
SKILLS
Essential:
Full driving licence
First Aid at Work qualification or equivalent
Ability to use IT effectively (word processing, power point, and spreadsheets, and
marketing)
Ability to communicate clearly, both verbally and in writing
Preferred:
Ability to put information across effectively to a range of audiences through a variety of
media.
Ability to facilitate community meetings, workshops and information evenings
Ability to work under pressure and meet deadlines
Appropriate community work qualification and/or environmental qualification

Area D
PERSONAL QUALITIES
Essential:
Ability to motivate, enthuse and work supportively with a wide range of people on different
levels.
A commitment to nature conservation.
Ability to liaise effectively and build good working relationships with a wide variety of
individuals and organisations.
Enthusiastic, Positive, friendly and safe approach.
Willingness to work in the evenings and at weekends (for which time off in lieu is given).
An organised approach to work and excellent time management
Is able to work independently as well as being part of a team.

Landscape connections
For the Landscape connections project we wish to employ a part time project officer 0.4
FTE and use additional staff on a casual contract basis to meet demand and support delivery
of the service.
The PO will be a new member of staff recruited externally through our Recruitment
procedures and in line with HLF guidelines.
The casual staff will be from our existing pool of casual staff. If we need to increase the team
capacity this will be done externally following HLF recruitment guidelines.
Job descriptions are attached.
We would also like to incorporate some time from our existing SOLO to support delivery but
to also support long term sustainability by ensuring this project fits with our wider outdoor
learning service. This will be specific hours factored in to support this
All staff will have clear role responsibilities relating to these roles and specific time
allocated to ensure they meet the outcomes.
SRWT have line management structures in place to monitor progress.
The project activities will be monitored closely in line with SLLP requirements. Records of
attendance and feedback from participants will be collected as well as anything else required
by the SLLP steering group.
Financial monitoring will be done in line with SRWT wider procedures with income and
expenditure tracked monthly against the management accounts. Copies of invoices will bd
retained for monitoring and auditing purposes.
Please find attached job descriptions for
NEW landscape connections PO 0.4 FTE
CASUAL outdoor learning assistant
EXISTING Senior Outdoor Learning officer
All job descriptions will be scored in line with SRWT recruitment procedures.

JOB DESCRIPTION
JOB TITLE:
Landscape Connections Project Officer
JOB NO:
RESPONSIBLE TO :
RESPONSIBLE FOR:
Senior Outdoor Learning Officer
Volunteers, Assistant Project Officer
OVERALL PURPOSE OF JOB
To plan and deliver a programme of activities working with primary and secondary school age
children to introduce them to the Sheffield Lakeland areas. The project will engage children
and young people living in the landscape area itself as well as children and young people
from the city. They will learn about the landscape and its natural and cultural heritage.
To work with other partner organisations within the Sheffield Lakeland partnership to help
signpost participants onto other projects.
MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES
To plan and deliver a programme of activities aimed at primary and secondary age
school children around topics such as ‘where food comes from’ ‘how food is produced’
‘the farmed landscape’ ‘plant science in farming’ and ‘sustainability’.
To develop a programme of sessions based at Cliffe House Farm
To engage at least 1 primary school from within the Sheffield Lakeland area and 1
primary school from Sheffield city and 1 secondary school to help develop the
programme.
To work with Senior Outdoor Learning Officer to promote opportunities through Learn
Sheffield teacher Networks
To provide support to volunteers and casual staff around delivery of sessions and
volunteers on the project.
To work with the Community Engagement and Learning Manager to ensure the project
continues to support local and national strategies.
To carry out regular consultation with local stakeholders to ensure activities are
relevant and engaging.
To signpost schools onto other opportunities they may be interested in.
To ensure project is publicised and promoted in line with Heritage Lottery guidelines
through local and national media and the Wildlife Trust’s website
To ensure the project is monitored on a regular basis

To evaluate sessions on a regular basis.
To plan and deliver a city wide celebration event/partnership event towards the end of
year 5, to celebrate individual achievements and disseminate the successes and
lessons learnt
To raise purchase orders and invoices as required against the project
To ensure accurate records are maintained around income/expenditure for the project
and ensure expenditure is kept on track to ensure any under spend or over spend is
avoided.
To ensure that all work undertaken is delivered in accordance with the policies and
procedures of Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust – including those concerning
health and safety, equal opportunities, procurement and environment.
To work initially with the Community Engagement and Learning Manager to manage
the budget for the project > 10K per annum).
To promote membership of SRWT and where appropriate recruit new members.
To undertake any other duties, as requested by the Chief Executive, or the CEL
Manager in line with the level of the post and the aims of the project

JOB SPECIFICATION
ABOUT SHEFFIELD AND ROTHERHAM WILDLIFE
TRUST
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is one of 47 Wildlife Trusts working to make
the United Kingdom a better place for people and wildlife. We are the biggest
voluntary sector nature conservation and environmental regeneration organisation in
South Yorkshire, supported by nearly 6,000 members and many volunteers.
We are part of the local community, working to protect and enhance the environment
of Sheffield and Rotherham for the benefit of people and wildlife. The Trust manages
14 nature reserves and recent projects include the delivery of natural flood risk
management schemes on the Rother and recording the return of the otter along the
River Don. The Trust delivers a great programme of activities throughout the year to
inspire people of all ages to learn about nature and enjoy being outdoors. We also
take action for wildlife and green spaces under threat, including campaigning to save
an ancient woodland and local wildlife site, Smithy Wood, from being turned into a
motorway service station. For more information about our work please visit
www.wildsheffield.com or phone 0114 263 4335 or email mail@wildsheffield.com
With more than 800,000 members, the Wildlife Trusts are the largest UK voluntary
organisation dedicated to conserving the full range of the UK's habitats and species.
Collectively we manage over 2,300 nature reserves covering more than 90,000
hectares.
ABOUT LANDSCAPE CONNECTIONS
The Landscape connections project is funded by Heritage Lottery Fund. The aim of
the project is to provide a programme of outdoor learning activities for schools from
both rural and urban communities – using the landscape as a natural outdoor
classroom to deliver a combination of natural heritage and farm visit learning
activities.
As this landscape is close to the city, there is a great potential to engage, excite and
inspire children and young people to connect with the local heritage around them.
We will enable urban children to experience a landscape which, although on their
doorstep is often left unexplored. We will empower local children to learn more about
the landscape they live in but may not full understand.
ABOUT THE ROLE
This role sits within the Community Engagement and Learning Team at Sheffield and
Rotherham Wildlife Trust.

The role will involve planning and delivering a programme of nature based activities
and visits to the Sheffield Lakeland areas. Sessions will be developed at a number
of locations including Cliffe House Farm.
The post holder will also work with partner organisations who have shown an interest
in the project. They will need to be aware of the wide ranging activities happening
across the Sheffield Lakelands to help signpost schools and groups to other activities
that may interest them.
The post holder will be directly line managed by the Senior Outdoor Learning Officer
who will provide that additional support to ensure the project outcomes are achieved.
The ideal person will be outgoing and personable and have experience of delivering
projects mainly in an outdoor setting to children and young people of both primary
and secondary school ages.
The successful person will need to demonstrate appropriate and effective
communication skills and be flexible to meet the needs of the community.
Experience of working and leading groups outdoors in a variety of settings is
important.
The role will be based between our office, Stafford Road, Sheffield and various
locations across the Sheffield Lakelands. Sessions will also be delivered at Cliffe
House Farm.
The post holder will be expected to manage a budget of £25K per annum.
They will not be responsible for directly line managing other delivery staff but will
support delivery staff on casual contracts and volunteers to deliver the project against
outcomes.
The post holder will ensure project monitoring is completed and reporting in line with
HLF guidelines and the wider Sheffield Lakeland Partnership. Support will be
provided by the Senior Outdoor Learning Officer as needed.

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary:
Pension:
PO Grade (not yet job scored)
Entry to the Trust's stakeholder pension scheme is available
immediately, with an entitlement to a 9% employer's
contribution after a six-month probationary period.
Employees already in the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife
Trust's Final Salary Pension Scheme at the time it was
closed to new entrants will be entitled to continue their
membership of that scheme, and to receive an employer's
contribution of 11%, subject to the employee also making a
contribution of 5%.
Working Hours: The working week for this post is 15 hours (0.4 FTE) ,
exclusive of lunch breaks. The post will involve some
evening and weekend work for which time off in lieu (TOIL)
can be taken. Flexi-time does not apply although informal
arrangements can be made at the Chief Executive’s
discretion (and most reasonable requests for non-standard
working arrangements can be accommodated within the
Trust’s policy on TOIL, and are given positive consideration).
Location:
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust Headquarters,
Victoria Hall, 37 Stafford Road, Sheffield. This is accessible
by bus services.
Probationary Period:
Annual Leave:
All new employees are required to undertake a period of
probation for 6 months, in which they will be expected to
establish their suitability for the post.
20 days a year plus bank holidays and 3 additional days to
cover the period between Christmas and New year when the
office is closed.
Length of Contract: permanent subject to funding (the funding for this project
ends xxxxx)
Transport provision:
Equal Opportunities:
Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever
practical. (Please read SRWT environmental policy for
further guidance). A pool of vehicles is provided for use,
when necessary.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is striving to be an
equal opportunities employer and selection of applicants is
based on merit. Please refer to the enclosed policy
document for further details.
Safeguarding:
This role is subject to a satisfactory DBS disclosure and
references

PERSON SPECIFICATION
This section deals with the knowledge, skills and expertise required for the post.
Please note it is not expected that candidates will necessarily have skills and
experience in all of the areas detailed, but this list will be used as a guide to assess
suitability for the post.
EXPERIENCE
Essential
At least 1 year of experience in developing, planning and delivering environmental outdoor
learning sessions to school groups at Key stage 1 & 2
Experience of communicating with schools and other group leaders to build excellent
ongoing relationships with teachers.
Experience of supervising staff or volunteers and trainees
Experience in managing budgets (> £10,000)
Desirable
Experience of working with disadvantaged and excluded groups and communities.
Experience of working with children informally, outside of school
Experience of leading a family event/activity
Experience of working with Key Stage 3
KNOWLEDGE/QUALIFICATIONS
Essential
Relevant A-levels, Level 3 or above qualifications.
Level 3 Forest School leader or equivalent that demonstrates ability to deliver
environmental activities including bush craft/tool use with children.
A basic knowledge of the National Curriculum and Schemes of Work for (particularly for
Key Stages 1 and 2), and ability to identify cross-curricular links when developing or
delivering a session
Knowledge of a range of environmental outdoor learning approaches e.g. Forest schools,
Earth education, outdoor learning, scientific recording, storytelling, play principles etc
A good understanding of nature conservation and ecology
An excellent understanding of H&S good practice
Hold a full driving licence
Desirable
A good understanding of safeguarding procedures
An understanding of how outdoor activities can be used to develop children’s skills and
learning.
First Aid at Work Certificate
SKILLS
Essential
Ability to enthuse, excite and motivate children about the natural world
Excellent personal organisation and time management skills
Excellent communication and interpersonal skills
Ability to work alone and co-operatively as part of a team
Basic administration and IT skills
Desirable
Ability to produce resources such as posters, teacher’s resources, leaflets etc.
PERSONAL QUALITIES
Highly motivated, enthusiastic and entrepreneurial – seeking out opportunities to grow and
develop the outdoor learning service in terms of offer, reach and financial sustainability
Flexibility to work evenings and weekends as required
Innovative and creative, responding to different situations and using own initiative
Working to high standards paying attention to detail.
Commitment to the work of the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust

JOB DESCRIPTION
1. IDENTIFICATION OF JOB
JOB TITLE:
JOB NUMBER:
RESPONSIBLE TO:
RESPONSIBLE FOR
Senior outdoor learning officer (outreach and centre) lead
SOLO514
Community engagement and learning manager
Outdoor learning officer (forest school), Casual education staff,
volunteers and trainees
2. OVERALL PURPOSE OF JOB
The senior outdoor learning officer (outreach and centre) will take a lead on developing and
delivering the Outdoor learning service to schools and groups across Sheffield and
Rotherham. To work with the Community engagement and learning manager and senior
outdoor learning officer (youth engagement) to co-ordinate and deliver Sheffield Wildlife
Trust’s outdoor learning service in line with the five year business plan. This post will have a
particular focus on the schools engagement aspect of the programme as well as developing
appropriate links for new centres. The post will plan and deliver accredited forest schools
training to potential practitioners and take a lead on the development of the outdoor learning
service. This post will be based at Sheffield Wildlife Trust’s Headquarters at 37 Stafford Road,
Sheffield but will work at many different sites including SWT’s nature reserves and SCC green
spaces. The role will also coordinate outdoor learning activities at key sites such as the
Woodland Discovery Centre. The post will also lead on the development of other outdoor
learning centres.
3. MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES:
i) To manage the outdoor learning service to schools ensuring high quality delivery at
foundation stage, KS1, KS2, KS3, KS4 and forest schools.
ii) To develop the outdoor learning service including new school programmes, sessions,
activities and resources.
iii) To lead on the development of new outdoor learning centres eg Greno woods and EON.
iv) To maintain an overview of the services resources and equipment ensuring it is all
current, safe and fit for purpose. This will include an annual audit of resources held at
stokes. SRWT HQ and the WDC
v) To lead on developing and delivering forest school level 1 and level 2 training to potential
practitioners, Inset training to teachers and other formal and informal training sessions as
necessary. Ensuring that all of these are delivered to the relevant quality assurance
standard.
vi) To work closely with the Community engagement and learning manager to ensure that
highest standards of safeguarding of children are met.
vii) To liaise closely with the Community engagement and learning manager and the senior
outdoor learning (youth engagement) lead to ensure a consistent approach is delivered.
viii) To work with the senior outdoor Learning (youth engagement lead) to develop and deliver
outdoor learning sessions to support other participative youth engagement projects and
family learning.

ix) To work with the senior outdoor learning (youth engagement) lead and community
wildlife rangers to organise and deliver a programme of out of school sessions and
family events (for example play schemes, summer schools, public events), including
publicity and promotion
x) To ensure all Forest School and outdoor learning training courses are delivered in line
with relevant quality assurance standards such as OCN, Cambium Trust and Forest
school network.
xi) To work with the head of finance and support services and feed into the training working
group to ensure all OCN training courses to support outdoor learning meet the quality
assurance and standards required as an accredited centre
xii) To work closely with the Community engagement and learning manager to ensure that
the highest standards of safeguarding are met (including working together to organise
and carry out Watch group support visits).
xiii) To work closely with the Community engagement and learning manager and the
outdoor learning (youth engagement) lead to ensure a consistent approach to outdoor
learning is delivered.
xiv) To ensure all outdoor learning school delivery meets Learning outside the classroom
standards.
xv) To work closely with the support services department to ensure that school bookings are
administered effectively including invoicing for complete sessions.
.
xvi) To set and manage the outdoor learning (Education) budgets (including grant and
contract income) and work to SRWT financial procedures as specified by the Community
Engagement and Learning Manager
xvii) To work closely with the Community engagement and learning manager and the
development team to identify opportunities for new projects / contracts and to promote the
outdoor learning programme and to ensure the ongoing partnership is maintained
between SRWT and Sheffield City Council woodland discovery centre.
xviii)
To work closely with the senior outdoor learning (youth engagement) lead
to ensure consistency in the marketing and sessions take into consideration participation
and involvement of young people.
xix) To represent SRWT at meetings and initiatives concerning developments in outdoor
learning.
xx) To keep thorough records of all projects including school / group booking, photographic
records, attendance monitoring and evaluation.
xxi) To work closely with the marketing team to ensure the outdoor learning programme and
projects are promoted widely and appropriately and to ensure the website and other e-
communications are kept up to date.
xxii) To promote SRWT and membership of the Trust at all opportunities and to work with the
Trust’s marketing team to develop opportunities and systems to promote the Trust and
sell merchandise through education projects.
xxiii) To supervise and manage other outdoor learning staff, casual staff,
trainees and volunteers and ensure delivery is efficient and effective.
xxiv)
To ensure all work is undertaken to SRWT's policies (e.g. child protection,
environmental and health and safety policies).
xxv)
To undertake any other duties, as requested by your Line Manager,
commensurate with the aims of SRWT.

JOB SPECIFICATION
The Senior outdoor learning ( Outreach and Centre ) lead will work as part of the Community
engagement and learning team to deliver outdoor learning sessions and raise awareness of
the importance of the natural world (and particularly living landscapes). The postholder will
be responsible for co-ordinating and delivering a range of projects and contracts, including:
Ensuring the continued successful delivery of our schools outdoor learning service.
SRWT currently engages a large number of schools per year in sessions ranging from a
couple of hours to several days. Activities are curriculum linked and include habitat studies,
environmental art, science and geography sessions (and more) for Foundation Stage and Key
Stages 1-4. The postholder will be expected to lead the development of new and sustainable
approaches to outdoor learning – including engaging Secondary Schools, and developing
Forest Schools/outdoor learning programmes. In particular, we would like the Outdoor
Learning Service to be more closely linked to our nature reserves and use these sites more
as a focus for delivery. The senior outdoor learning officer (outreach and centre)will also
need to ensure that school bookings are administered effectively (promoting activities, dealing
with enquiries, taking bookings, sending out information and invoicing), co-ordinate workloads
within the team, deliver sessions, and co-ordinate evaluations. A part-time outdoor learning
Officer and casual staff are employed to provide additional capacity during the busy summer
period.
Engaging schools through Greno Woods programme.
Greno woods is SRWT’s newest nature reserve. It is an ancient woodland of regional and
national significance and offers many opportunities to engage schools and deliver learningbased
activities. The senior outdoor learning officer (outreach and centre) lead will work
closely with the Greno woods team to develop activities and engage schools on the site using
a variety of outdoor learning approaches.
SRWT believes that children have a right to enjoy and experience the natural world – whether
that is a rural nature reserve or a grassy corner of an urban school playground. Outdoor
learning is dedicated to both raising awareness about the natural world, and creating
opportunities for children to use and enjoy the outdoors. As such, all our school sessions are
curriculum linked, with clear learning goals. As well as the obvious environmental sessions
(habitat studies, food chains etc) we also recognise the opportunities for wider development
that outdoor learning offers – including literacy, language, numeracy, science and citizenship
skills. The senior outdoor learning officer will be expected to demonstrate a broad approach
to teaching and engaging children – showing that they can recognise and build on all areas of
children’s learning and development, at the same time as clearly identifying and meeting set
curriculum-linked learning goals.
The postholder will be expected to work independently to deliver activities to groups of up to
35 children at a time, and to work as part of a team to deliver larger activities. This will include
being responsible for unsupervised groups of children, for example running after school clubs
or play schemes (with the support of volunteers and trainees). They will be responsible for a
small team and they will need to manage a very busy workload and be able to organise their
and other people’s time to fit as many sessions in as possible. They must be able to work
independently with very little supervision. They will need to ensure that Sheffield Wildlife
Trust policies and procedures are implemented at all times (particularly those relating to
working with children and health and safety).
The post holder will be responsible for setting and managing the outdoor learning budgets of
up to £100K per year (including contract budgets and having delegated responsibility for lines
within other project budgets which could add up to £200K subject to other successful funding
bids). They will be responsible for managing casual staff, other outdoor learning staff,
volunteers and trainees.
The post holder will be required to deal with external contacts (including teachers, education
workers, and play workers, Local Authority Officers) to plan activities and develop new
contracts. They will also have some dealings with suppliers and contractors and they will

occasionally be in contact with partner bodies including other Wildlife Trusts, local
environmental organisations, Local Authorities and PR companies & sponsors.
The postholder will also lead on planning and delivery of OCN Forest School training courses
and should have a level 3 Forest School qualification as well as relevant training to be able to
support adult learners and deliver training to other adults.
Due to the nature of the job regular evening and weekend work will be required (which may
include occasional overnight stays as part of residential trips or training) and a driving licence
will be essential, although public transport should always be used when practical.
The successful applicant for this post will be able to demonstrate existing experience in
working with children and delivering environmental education activities. This is likely to be
equivalent to at least 1-2 years relevant experience and evidence that this has included
independent working (including leading children’s activities). They must be qualified to a level
3 Forest Schools leader’s qualification and be able to evidence they are able to lead sessions
and this should be evidenced through previous experience and / or relevant outdoor learning
qualification.
The appointment to the post is subject to a satisfactory enhanced DBS Disclosure and
references.
As the lead person for our outdoor learning particularly around schools, the post-holder will be
expected to represent the trust at a range of meetings and events. In particular, they will be
an active member of outdoor learning and education networks across Sheffield and
Rotherham. They will need to develop partnerships and contacts to ensure the trust is
represented appropriately in these locations. They will need to work in line with the agreed
way of working to ensure everyone is clear on the boundaries with Yorkshire Wildlife Trust to
ensure that they are aware of our work in South Yorkshire and to build capacity in this area.
In addition, we expect the post holder to work with other Wildlife Trusts, local environmental
organisations, local authority and voluntary sector youth agencies and PR companies &
sponsors to promote the work of children and young people.

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary:
Pension:
£ 24,860.66 per annum Senior Project Officer Grade
Entry to the Trust's stakeholder pension scheme is available
immediately, with an entitlement to a 9% employer's contribution after
a six-month probationary period.
Working Hours: The working week for this post is 37.5 hours Full time (9:00am –
5:30pm, exclusive of lunch breaks. The post will involve some
evening and weekend work for which time off in lieu can be taken.
Flexi-time does not apply although informal arrangements can be
made at the Chief Executive’s discretion.
Location:
The post will be based at the Trust’s headquarters in Sheffield but will
mainly be delivering across South Yorkshire and supporting other out
posted offices included the Woodland Discovery Centre.
Probationary Period: All new employees are required to undertake a period of probation for
6 months, in which they will be expected to establish their suitability
for the post.
Annual Leave:
Length of Contract:
20 days holiday, plus 3 days to be taken between Christmas and
New Year, plus bank holidays pro rata. Staff will also receive a
holiday bonus of 1 day per year for the first five years of full time
service up to a maximum of 25 days per year.
The post is permanent subject to funding.
Transport provision: Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever practical.
(Please read SRWT environmental policy for further guidance).
However the post holder will have use of a pool of Trust vehicles
when needed.
Equal Opportunities: SRWT is striving to be an equal opportunities employer and selection
of applicants is based on merit. Please refer to the enclosed policy
document for further details.

PERSON SPECIFICATION
Area A
EXPERIENCE
Experience of delivering environmental educational sessions to groups of approx.35
children and above. –
Qualified to level 3 Forest Schools
Experience of planning and delivering adult training with a relevant qualification.
Experience of working with children and young people in an out of school environment
(e.g. Family events, clubs and other groups.)
Experience of planning larger events to engage families in outdoor learning and other
learning-based activities
Experience of working with disadvantaged and excluded groups and communities.
Experience of running events.
Experience of supervising and managing other staff / trainees or volunteers.
Experience of managing budgets
Area B
KNOWLEDGE
A good working knowledge of the National Curriculum and Schemes of Work all Key
Stages, and ability to identify cross-curricular links when developing or delivering a session
Knowledge of a number of environmental education approaches and activities suitable for
different ages and learning styles – e.g. Forest Schools, Earth Education, scientific
recording, story telling, play principles etc
A good knowledge of how to support adult learners through training and skills
development
A good knowledge of ecology, nature conservation and environmental issues
A good understanding of child protection procedures.
An understanding of how outdoor activities can be used to develop children’s skills and
learning.
A good understanding of budget management – including setting, managing and the need
to raise income to cover the cost of the service and make a contribution to core funds.
Area C SKILLS
Ability to enthuse and motivate children in small group and whole class situations.
Excellent personal organisation and time management skills
Excellent communication and interpersonal skills to a range of audiences.
Ability to produce resources such as posters, teacher’s resources, leaflets etc.
Ability to work co-operatively as part of a team.
Excellent administration and IT skills
Hold a full driving licence and First Aid at Work Certificate
Ability to manage a team or staff and volunteers.
.
Area D PERSONAL QUALITIES
An obvious enthusiasm for this post, and for supporting children’s learning and
development.
Self-motivated and able to work independently.
Innovative and creative, working to high standards paying attention to detail.
Flexibility to work evenings and weekends as required.
Positive, friendly and supportive approach.
A commitment to nature conservation.

JOB DESCRIPTION
1. IDENTIFICATION OF JOB
JOB TITLE:
Land Management Team (LMT) Officer
JOB NUMBER:
RESPONSIBLE TO:
Living Landscapes Manager (north)
RESPONSIBLE FOR: Bursary, volunteers, trainees, interns, work experience
placements and LMT casual site supervisors.
2. OVERALL PURPOSE OF JOB
To lead a team of volunteers and trainees to implement land management and maintenance work
on Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust (SRWT) nature reserves (including five within the
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership) and other sites across the operational area.
3. MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
To lead a team of volunteer and trainees to implement high quality land
management and maintenance work on SRWT nature reserves and other sites as
necessary.
To work with the Living Don programme managers in planning and delivering
management and maintenance works across the network for nature.
To keep records and take photos of site works and enter these on the IT system.
With the support of the HR Officer to recruit and manage the work programmes of
all volunteers and trainees with the LMT.
Contribute to the effective running of the SRWT tool store on a daily basis to
ensure tools, equipment, materials and waste are stored & managed
appropriately.
To undertake & document regular safety checks of SRWT vehicles, tools,
equipment and machinery and maintain as necessary.
To line manage up to three bursary/volunteers/trainee placements.
To organise casual site supervisor cover to maintain LMT delivery during holiday
& training days.
To liaise with the general public at monthly Volunteer Work Days (VWD’s) across
a variety of nature reserves and with occasional corporate volunteering groups.
To deal with on site public enquiries and/or complaints in an appropriate manner.
Manage land management budget lines.
Alongside the HR Officer, support the personal and career development of SRWT
volunteers and trainees etc.

(xiii)
(xiv)
(xv)
(xvi)
(xvii)
(xviii)
(xix)
Assist in the writing and updating of SRWT policies and procedures in relation to
conservation and land management.
To actively recruit new members to Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust when
opportunities arise.
To ensure that all work undertaken is delivered according to the policies and
procedures of SRWT – including those concerning Health & Safety, Equality and
Diversity, Safeguarding Children and Vulnerable Adults, Procurement and
Environment.
To carry out any other duties appropriate to the grade of the post and the
objectives of SRWT, as requested by the department’s programme managers or
Head of Conservation and Land Management.
Undertake any other duties, as requested by senior managers and commensurate
with the aims of Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust.
Work to and promote the Trust’s charitable objectives, strategy, policies and
procedures, including the Trust’s culture statement at all times.
Present a professional image of the Trust at all times.
In addition we’re looking for the post holder to take a lead role in the following areas:
a) Health and safety rep including COSHH / DSEAR / Sharps / HAVS/ PUWER /
PPE / Risk Assessments / FISA Assessments – including attendance at the
SRWT H&S consultative meetings. PETE
b) Building & Fire Rep for tool store – ensuring fire alarm tests are done and security
lighting in working order. Access routes to fire doors are maintained and fire
extinguisher inspections are carried out etc. Maintenance of tool store including
the shutter door, fire doors, security alarm, plumbing, lighting, skip management,
PAT testing etc. PETE
c) Casual site supervisor management including recruitment, support &
development. PETE
d) Overall responsibility for managing the LMT budget (with the other post holder
covering when necessary). PETE

JOB SPECIFICATION
This section deals with the scope, nature and type of work associated with this post, including
the level of decision-making required, the scale of budgets and number of staff managed, and
the level of knowledge and experience expected.
The Land Management Team Officer works to deliver a programme of practical tasks on
SRWT nature reserves and other sites across the city, supervising a small team of trainees
and volunteers.
The post holder has both the day to day responsibility for incurring expenditure (up to £200)
against budgets held by a number of other SRWT staff, and for ensuring that appropriate
financial policies and procedures are followed and have direct delegated responsibility for
management of their own expenditure budget lines up to £10,000 per annum. In addition to
this the post holder is required to project manage, with support, projects with expenditure and
income up to the value of £25,000.
During the course of their work, the LMT Officer is expected to deal with a variety of mainly
complex and non-routine work activities in differing situations, and often with considerable
responsibility and autonomy – particularly in relation to ensuring the quality of work delivered
and training given, across a wide range of tasks and skills, including ensuring compliance with
health & safety, equal opportunities, environmental and other policies and procedures.
Much of the work of the LMT Officer is expected to be carried out with little supervision from
their line manager – particularly the day-to-day management of the Land Management Team,
when preparing for, carrying out and finishing off practical days out on site. This will require
them to manage and support the members of their team for a significant part of the working
week.
They are expected to deal with a range of external contacts, including suppliers, contractors,
clients and the general public, to take part in a range of collective team activities, and
occasionally to communicate with other outside audiences (such as members, funders, etc).
Overall, it is expected that the post holder will have at least 2 years of appropriate relevant
experience, and a vocational qualification equivalent to NVQ 3, or above.

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary:
0.8 Project Officer (PO1 grade). £21,991 per annum pro rata.
Pension: All staff who earn over £192 per week (£833 per month) are over 22
and under pensionable age, are automatically enrolled on the SRWT
pension scheme. Following a 3 month postponement, SRWT will
contribute 1% salary which the employee must match. After 6 month’s
service, the employee will be entitled to a 9% contribution which need
not be matched. Anyone who does not meet eligibility criteria will have
the opportunity to join the scheme should they wish, although they will
not qualify for SRWT contributions.
Working Hours:
Location:
The working week for this post is 30 hours. The post will involve
some evening and weekend work for which time off in lieu can be
taken. Flexi-time does not apply although informal arrangements can
be made at the CEO’s discretion.
The post will work out of the Trust’s operational base (currently
central Sheffield) on site days and the Trust headquarters, at Victoria
Hall. A substantial amount of time to be spent delivering practical
works on site and at the Trust’s operational base. However it is
expected that the post holder will occasionally visit other SRWT
holdings and project sites and will work throughout Sheffield and
Rotherham.
Probationary Period: All new employees are required to undertake a period of probation for
6 months, in which they will be expected to establish their suitability
for the post.
Annual Leave:
Length of Contract:
20 days holiday per annum pro rata, plus 3 days to be taken between
Christmas and New Year and bank holidays. Staff also receive a
holiday bonus of 1 day per year for the first five years of full time
service up to a maximum of 25 days per year.
Permanent (subject to funding).
Transport provision: Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever practical.
(Please read SRWT environmental policy for further guidance).
However the postholder will have use of a pool of Trust vehicles when
needed and a crew cab or 4x4 for site days.
Equal Opportunities:
DBS Assessment:
SRWT is an equal opportunities employer and selection of
applicants is based on merit. Please refer to the enclosed policy
document for further details.
This post may require a DBS check at a standard level (exempt from
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, 1974)

PERSON SPECIFICATION
This section deals with the knowledge, skills and expertise required for the post. Please note
it is not expected that candidates will necessarily have skills and experience in all of
the areas detailed, but this list will be used as a guide to assess suitability for the post.
Area A
EXPERIENCE
Essential
Overall it is expected that the post holder will have at least two years of appropriate
relevant experience.
Of three of the following: post and rail fencing; post and wire fencing; tree / hedge planting;
scrub clearance; felling of small - medium trees; footpath clearance and maintenance;
pond clearance and pond creation.
Managing, motivating and supervising trainees and volunteers.
Habitat creation and management.
Area B
KNOWLEDGE/QUALIFICATIONS
Essential
A vocational qualification equivalent to NVQ 3, or above.
Full driving license.
A good understanding of health and safety principles and procedures.
At least two of the following certificates: chainsaws; brush cutters; tree safety
work/inspections; pesticide application; wood-chipper and trailer towing licence.
Desirable
First Aid at Work certificate or willingness to undertake training in this.
A good understanding of nature conservation and ecology.
An understanding of practical site management issues.
Area C
SKILLS
Essential
Practical conservation skills in at least three of the following: construction and
maintenance of fences; footpaths; ponds; tree planting; tree felling and spraying.
Strong leadership and organisational skills.
Good communication and interpersonal skills.
Desirable
Ability to recruit, support and mentor trainees and volunteers.
Tool and equipment repair and maintenance skills.
Ability to work co-operatively as part of a team.
Budget management.
Good verbal and written communication – including tact and diplomacy.
Area D
PERSONAL QUALITIES

Essential
Ability to motivate and enthuse people.
Ability to work supportively with a wide range of people on different levels.
A careful and safe approach.
Positive and friendly approach.
Willingness to recruit members.
A sense of initiative to solve practical problems.
Ability to be tactful & diplomatic when dealing with public enquiries & complaints.
Ability to work under own initiative and meet deadlines.
Good level of physical fitness and the ability to work safely on semi-remote sites.
Acts with integrity and professionalism at all times.
Enthusiastic and personal commitment to the work of Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife
Trust.

JOB DESCRIPTION
JOB TITLE:
Living Landscapes Manager (north)
JOB NO:
RESPONSIBLE TO:
RESPONSIBLE FOR:
Chief Executive, Head of Conservation and Land
Management (C&LM)
Land Management Team (LMT) Officer, Volunteers, Student
placements.
OVERALL PURPOSE OF JOB
To manage Living Landscapes delivery work including land management, community
engagement and ecological survey/monitoring within the Western Valleys (inc Sheffield
Lakeland Landscape Partnership work) and River Don parts of the wider Living Don ‘Network
for Nature’. Sites include Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust (SRWT) nature reserves,
local authority sites and those belonging to other partners such as the Environment Agency.
MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES
Responsibility for overseeing delivery of practical elements of the River Rother Restoration
programme which includes development and ecological restoration work.
Responsibility for practical management of SRWT nature reserves within this area, including
project management of the agri-environment and grant-funded work at Wyming Brook/Fox
Hagg, Carr House Meadows, Agden Bog, Crabtree Ponds, Sunnybank, Salmon Pastures,
Centenary Riverside and Kilnhurst Ings. This includes line management of the Land
Management Officer responsible for working on these sites.
Supporting the Head of C&LM and Living Landscape Development Manager in identifying and
securing further funding for SRWT nature reserves and future Living Landscape programmes.
Working with the Head of C&LM and other partners/landowners to promote the Living Don
programme and ‘network for nature’ concept.
Liaison with the Community Engagement and Learning Manager and Community Wildlife
Ranger to co-ordinate the community engagement elements of the project.
This role also includes convening and supporting Reserve Advisory Groups
Manage budgets in accordance with funder’s rules and administer, commit and spend grant
monies according to SRWT’s financial guidelines.
Submit claims and report on progress of the project to funders, the project partners and others
as required.
Maintain accurate records of the project’s achievements.
Line manage and/or work with volunteers/student placements as required.
Seek wider support for the work of the Trust through presentations to appropriate audiences.
Promote the work of the Wildlife Trust to potential members, partners and funders.
Ensure all work is undertaken to SRWT's policies (e.g. child welfare, equal opportunities,
environmental, procurement and health and safety policies).
Undertake any other duties, as requested by the Trust’s Chief Executive or Head of C&LM, in
line with the aims of the SRWT, the network for nature and the grade of the post.

JOB SPECIFICATION
DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary: £ 28,134 pro rata per annum (0.8 FTE)
Pension:
Working Hours:
Location:
Entry to the Trust's stakeholder pension scheme is available
immediately, with an entitlement to a 9% employer's contribution after
a six-month probationary period.
The working week for this post is 30 hours exclusive of lunch breaks.
The post will involve some evening and weekend work for which time
off in lieu can be taken. Flexi-time does not apply although informal
arrangements can be made at the Chief Executive’s discretion.
The post will be based at the Trust’s Headquarters, at Victoria Hall.
However it is expected that the post holder will occasionally visit
other SRWT premises and project sites and will work throughout
Sheffield and Rotherham.
Probationary Period: All new employees are required to undertake a period of probation for
6 months, in which they will be expected to establish their suitability
for the post.
Annual Leave:
Length of Contract:
20 days holiday, plus 3 days to be taken between Christmas and
New Year, plus bank holidays pro rata. Staff will also receive a
holiday bonus of 1 day per year for the first five years of full time
service up to a maximum of 25 days per year. Annual leave
entitlement is pro rata for all part time staff.
The post is permanent subject to funding.
Transport provision: Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever practical.
(Please read SRWT environmental policy for further guidance).
However the post holder will have use of a pool of Trust vehicles
when needed.
Equal Opportunities: Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is striving to be an equal
opportunities employer and selection of applicants is based on merit.
Please refer to the enclosed policy document for further details.
Level of DBS
required:
This post will not be subject to a DBS disclosure in line with our DBS
Policy and Procedures.
PERSON SPECIFICATION

This section deals with the knowledge, skills and expertise required for the post.
Please note it is not expected that candidates will necessarily have skills and
experience in all of the areas detailed, but this list will be used as a guide to assess
suitability for the post.
Area A
EXPERIENCE
At least 4 years substantial and relevant experience of environmental conservation.
First hand experience of project development and land management.
First hand experience of working with local people, volunteers, trainees and children as
well as urban regeneration partners (e.g. local authorities, funding agencies, housing
developers, private industry).
Experience of staff and budget management.
Experience of raising funds from government, local authority and other sources.
Experience of staff recruitment and employment.
Experience of developing policies and procedures.
Area B
KNOWLEDGE
A high level of knowledge of funding regimes, especially landfill tax.
An understanding of habitat and species conservation, and of the principles of sustainable
land management.
A good understanding of methods of engaging local people.
A good working knowledge of Microsoft Word, Excel & PowerPoint.
A good working knowledge of e-mail and the internet.
Some knowledge of local biodiversity action planning and reporting (BARS) would be
desirable.
Area C
SKILLS
A degree in an appropriate discipline. (And preferably a higher degree in an appropriate
discipline.)
Excellent communication and interpersonal skills - especially the ability to write clearly and
concisely, and the ability to work constructively with people from a wide range of
backgrounds.
Ability to organise, motivate and guide colleagues.
Practical IT skills (see lists of expected experience and knowledge above).
Ability to organise own workload effectively and work largely under own initiative.
Ability to negotiate effectively and work productively with working partners, even when
dealing with contentious issues.
Ability to plan and manage complex work programmes and budgets.
A full driving license is essential.
Area D
PERSONAL QUALITIES
Mature, pragmatic, professional and business-like.
Highly motivated and enthusiastic with an ability to enthuse and motivate others.
Ability to think strategically.
Ability to meet tight deadlines and prioritise a highly demanding workload.
A strong sense of community partnership.
Ability to acquire new knowledge and develop new skills.
Ability to work supportively with a wide range of people on different levels.
Tact and diplomacy
A strong commitment to nature conservation

JOB DESCRIPTION
JOB TITLE:
Head of Conservation & Land Management
JOB NO: HCLM Jan 2016
RESPONSIBLE TO :
RESPONSIBLE FOR:
Chief Executive
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership (SLLP) Project
Manager, Living Landscape Managers,
Other project delivery staff/volunteers
OVERALL PURPOSE OF JOB
To lead the development and delivery of conservation, wildlife and habitat improvement
programmes, both on the Trust’s own Nature Reserves and across partnership sites,
ensuring that they contribute to the Trust’s vision and strategy for Living Landscapes
across Sheffield and urban Rotherham.
To actively contribute to the strategic development of the Trust as a member of the
Executive Team.
MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES
To lead and develop the delivery of a wide range of conservation, wildlife and
habitat improvement programmes, both on the Trust’s own Nature Reserves and
across other partnership sites e.g. SLLP, continuously seeking opportunities to
learn, improve and innovate new ideas, methods and approaches.
To lead, inspire and line manage the Conservation and Land Management Dept,
including staff and volunteers working on the SLLP and Trust Nature Reserves.
To manage the Conservation and Land Management Department budget within
target, supporting individual budget holders to manage their budgets within the
departmental framework. To work closely with the Head of Development and
Head of Finance & Support Services to ensure budgets are up-to-date and
accurate for reporting to the Chief Executive and the Board.
To work with Head of Development and the Living Landscapes Development
Manager to actively seek out new opportunities to further the Trust’s strategy,
including new funding streams, ensuring that new opportunities, projects and
funding bids are achievable and deliverable within proposed budgets and time
frame
To work with the Head of Finance and Support Services to ensure the
Conservation and Land Management staff and vols have access to appropriate
resources and support (within budget constraints) and use Trust resources
efficiently and with respect.

To ensure excellent project management and delivery across the Conservation
and Land Management Dept, - within budget and on target with timely, high
quality, accurate reports and claims submitted to partners and funders.
To work with the Chief Executive and the Marketing and Communications Team to
ensure that the Trust’s practical activities, project outputs, wildlife and
conservation issues and success are used effectively to serve the Trust’s
communication, marketing and development needs.
To develop and maintain excellent working relationships with a wide range of
partners including Local Authorities, NGO’s and Government bodies, in order to
both advocate the work of the Trust and develop and deliver new programmes of
externally funded work.
To represent the Trust on external bodies and forums as appropriate and agreed
with the Chief Executive.
To contribute to the development & delivery of significant public strategies that
relate to the practical delivery of SRWT’s charitable aims – particularly those that
have implications for the delivery of Living Landscapes and people’s engagement
with them.
To actively contribute to the Trust’s strategic development as a member of the
Executive Team, including leading on business planning and monitoring for the
Conservation and Land Management Dept and Outcome 1 activity.
To engage with Trustees to enable them to understand the work of the Trust,
particularly in terms of Conversation and Land Management. To participate in
events and Board meetings from time to time, as agreed with the Chief Executive.
To support the Chief Executive in the development and implementation of Trust
policies and procedures, particularly leading on technical matters relating to
conservation, habitat management, health and safety (especially in the field),
equipment and resource requirements etc.
To work with the Chief Executive and other Executive Team members to ensure
that Conservation & Land Management Dept staff and volunteers fully participate
in and contribute to the work of the Trust and integrate their activities into those of
other Departments.
General Duties
To undertake any other duties, as requested by the Chief Executive, in line with
the level and nature of the post and the aims of the Sheffield & Rotherham
Wildlife Trust.
To promote the Wildlife Trust, Wildlife Trust membership and the Wildlife
Trust's work
To show leadership in and promote the Trust’s Charitable Objectives, Strategy,
policies and procedures, including the Trust’s culture statement
To present a professional image of the Trust at all times

JOB SPECIFICATION
The Head of Conservation and Land Management is a departmental manager role and part of
the senior executive team. The post holder will be involved in a wide range of complex,
technical and professional work in differing situations and with a substantial degree of
personal responsibility and autonomy.
The post holder is responsible for managing a budget of between £500,000 and £1,000,000
(excluding exceptional capital acquisitions), for leading a team of between 11 and 50 staff, and
representing the Trust's interests on a sub-regional scale.
The Head of Conservation and Land Management is expected to monitor & control the use of
their departmental budget, and in doing so, to have an overview of the Trust's overall financial
situation and (with other senior staff) contribute to ensuring strong financial performance of the
organisation. They have substantial personal autonomy, and significant responsibility for a
substantial part of the organisation.
The post requires regular communication with partners, suppliers and contractors regarding
programme development and delivery. The Head of Conservation and Land Management will
also be required to develop good working relationships, with external land management and
conservation contacts, including officers in local government and statutory agencies and other
NGOs, businesses etc working in the city and South Yorkshire area. They will very
occasionally be required to address audiences of more than 10 people, and to actively
participate, with the CEO, in meetings with MPs, Council Cabinet members etc.
The post holder requires substantial relevant experience, knowledge and skills relating to a
number of the following areas: nature conservation, environmental management, land
management, habitat management, wildlife conservation and/or ecology. They are likely to
have a relevant degree and more than three years' experience in a similar role, and would
ideally also have a relevant post graduate and/or professional qualification.

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary:
Pension:
Working Hours:
Location:
Department Manager Grade
This post is subject to auto-enrolment. Entry to the Trust's
stakeholder pension scheme is available immediately, with an
entitlement to a 9% employer's contribution after a six month
probationary period has been successfully completed.
The working week for this post is 37.5 hours, exclusive of lunch
breaks. The post will involve some evening and weekend work for
which time off in lieu (TOIL) can be taken. Flexi-time does not apply
although informal arrangements can be made at the Chief
Executive’s discretion (and most reasonable requests for nonstandard
working arrangements can be accommodated within the
Trust’s policy on TOIL, and are given positive consideration).
The post will be based at Victoria Hall. It is expected that the post
holder will frequently visit other SRWT premises and project sites.
Probationary Period: All new employees are required to undertake a period of probation for
6 months, in which they will be expected to establish their suitability
for the post.
Annual Leave:
20 days a year, plus 3 days additional leave that must be taken
between 27 th and 31 st December (inclusive). Each year, the Trust's
offices close from Christmas Day through to 1 st , 2 nd or 3 rd January
(inclusive), depending on the pattern of statutory holidays around the
festive period.
The Trust's holiday year runs from 1 st January to 31 st December, and
staff working for only part of the year (either because they are
employed on a temporary contract, they took up a new post partway
through the year, or they are contracted to work fewer than 37.5
hours per week) are entitled to take holidays on a pro-rata basis in
any given holiday year. All staff are entitled to take the compulsory
holiday at Christmas in full.
From the start of the holiday year following the 1 st anniversary of
starting a period of continuous employment with the Trust, all staff are
entitled to one additional day of annual leave, for each full year of
continuous service - up to a maximum of 5 additional days.
Length of Contract:
The post is permanent, subject to funding.
Transport provision: Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever possible.
(Please read SRWT's environmental policy for further guidance).
However the post holder will have use of a pool of Trust vehicles
when needed.
Equal Opportunities: Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust is striving to be an equal
opportunities employer and selection of applicants is based on merit.
Please refer to the enclosed policy document for further details.

PERSON SPECIFICATION
This section deals with the knowledge, skills, expertise and personal qualities required for the
post. Please note it is not expected that candidates will necessarily have skills and
experience in all of the areas detailed, but this list will be used as a guide to assess
suitability for the post.
Area A
EXPERIENCE
At least 3 years substantial and relevant experience in at least two of the following areas:
nature conservation, environmental management, land management, ecosystem
management, landscape-scale conservation, habitat management, wildlife conservation,
nature reserve management, access and/or ecology.
Significant experience of strategic programme development & management, including
seeking and drawing down funding and developing partnerships
Significant experience in a senior management role, including managing staff, volunteers,
budgets and resources
Experience of working with local authorities, funding agencies, government departments,
housing developers, private industry
Excellent track record of capital and land management project delivery on time and to
budget.
Experience of managing land, ideally Nature Reserves or similar, which are well used by
the public for leisure and recreation.
Desirable
Experience of managing land, ideally Nature Reserves or similar, in an urban location
which are well used by the public for leisure and recreation.
Experience of developing policies and procedures
Experience of monitoring and measuring impact (social, wildlife, value for money etc) and
progress as a result of land management delivery
Area B
KNOWLEDGE/QUALIFICATION
Relevant degree or equivalent and demonstration of ongoing professional development eg
membership of relevant professional body
Excellent understanding of the principles and practice of nature conservation and/or
environmental regeneration (particularly in an urban context)
Excellent practical knowledge of land and habitat management and species conservation
of relevance to the Sheffield and Rotherham area
Excellent knowledge of health and safety issues, especially in the field
Good working knowledge of wildlife and environmental law relevant to the role
Good knowledge of key agencies working in land management and nature conservation
Good knowledge of current conservation issues
Good working knowledge of how to engage with volunteers
Working knowledge of Gmail, Microsoft Word, Excel & PowerPoint
Desirable
Relevant postgraduate qualification

Knowledge of funding regimes, especially from National Lottery distribution bodies, Landfill
Tax and the European Union
Good knowledge of key agencies working in land management and nature conservation in
the Sheffield and Rotherham area.
Area C
SKILLS
Ability to think strategically.
Ability to organise your own workload effectively and work largely under your own initiative
Ability to negotiate effectively and work productively with partners, even when dealing with
highly contentious issues
Ability to plan and manage complex work programmes and budgets
Excellent communication and interpersonal skills - especially the ability to write clearly and
concisely, and the ability to work constructively with people from a wide range of
backgrounds
Ability to lead, manage, motivate and guide colleagues
Able to work autonomously and as part of a team
Practical IT skills
A full driving license
Area D
PERSONAL QUALITIES
Highly motivated and enthusiastic with an ability to enthuse and motivate others.
Willingness to learn and seek out new ideas and opportunities
Tactful and diplomatic; respectful of others.
Committed to the aims of the Trust and to land management and nature conservation for
the benefit of people and wildlife

JOB DESCRIPTION
JOB TITLE:
Living Landscapes Manager - South
JOB NO:
RESPONSIBLE TO:
RESPONSIBLE FOR:
Chief Executive, Head of Conservation and Land
Management (C&LM)
Community Wildlife Ranger (CWR), Land Management
Team (LMT) Officer, Volunteers, Student placements.
OVERALL PURPOSE OF JOB
To manage Living Landscapes delivery work including land management, community
engagement and ecological survey/monitoring within the South Sheffield Greenway area and
Rotherham Rivers (south) areas, which forms part of the wider Living Don ‘Network for
Nature’. Sites include Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust (SRWT) nature reserves, local
authority sites and those belonging to other partners such as the Environment Agency.
MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES
Responsibility for overseeing delivery of practical elements of the River Rother Restoration
programme which includes development and ecological restoration work.
Responsibility for practical management of SRWT nature reserves within this area, including
project management of the agri-environment and grant-funded work at Blacka Moor, Moss
Valley Woodlands, Woodhouse Washlands and Carbrook Ravine.
Supporting the Head of C&LM and Living Landscape Development Manager in identifying and
securing further funding for SRWT nature reserves and future Living Landscape programmes.
Working with the Head of C&LM and other partners/landowners to promote the Living Don
programme and ‘network for nature’ concept.
Liaison with the Community Engagement and Learning Manager and Community Wildlife
Ranger to co-ordinate the community engagement elements of the project.
This role also includes attending and supporting the Sheffield Moors Partnership
Manage the project’s budget in accordance with funder’s rules and administer, commit and
spend grant monies according to SRWT’s financial guidelines.
Submit claims and report on progress of the project to funders, the project partners and others
as required.
Maintain accurate records of the project’s achievements.
Line manage and/or work with volunteers/student placements as required.
Seek wider support for the work of the Trust through presentations to appropriate audiences.
Promote the work of the Wildlife Trust to potential members, partners and funders.
Ensure all work is undertaken to SRWT's policies (e.g. child welfare, equal opportunities,
environmental, procurement and health and safety policies).
Undertake any other duties, as requested by the Trust’s Chief Executive, Head of C&LM, in
line with the aims of the SRWT, the network for nature and the grade of the post.

JOB SPECIFICATION
DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary: £ 28,134 pro rata per annum (0.8 FTE)
Pension:
Working Hours:
Location:
Entry to the Trust's stakeholder pension scheme is available
immediately, with an entitlement to a 9% employer's contribution after
a six-month probationary period.
The working week for this post is 30 hours exclusive of lunch breaks.
The post will involve some evening and weekend work for which time
off in lieu can be taken. Flexi-time does not apply although informal
arrangements can be made at the Chief Executive’s discretion.
The post will be based at the Trust’s Headquarters, at Victoria Hall.
However it is expected that the post holder will occasionally visit
other SRWT premises and project sites and will work throughout
Sheffield and Rotherham.
Probationary Period: All new employees are required to undertake a period of probation for
6 months, in which they will be expected to establish their suitability
for the post.
Annual Leave:
Length of Contract:
20 days holiday, plus 3 days to be taken between Christmas and
New Year, plus bank holidays pro rata. Staff will also receive a
holiday bonus of 1 day per year for the first five years of full time
service up to a maximum of 25 days per year. Annual leave
entitlement is pro rata for all part time staff.
The post is permanent subject to funding.
Transport provision: Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever practical.
(Please read SRWT environmental policy for further guidance).
However the post holder will have use of a pool of Trust vehicles
when needed.
Equal Opportunities: Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is striving to be an equal
opportunities employer and selection of applicants is based on merit.
Please refer to the enclosed policy document for further details.
Level of DBS
required:
This post will not be subject to a DBS disclosure in line with our DBS
Policy and Procedures.
PERSON SPECIFICATION
This section deals with the knowledge, skills and expertise required for the post.

Please note it is not expected that candidates will necessarily have skills and
experience in all of the areas detailed, but this list will be used as a guide to assess
suitability for the post.
Area A
EXPERIENCE
At least 4 years substantial and relevant experience of environmental conservation.
First hand experience of project development and land management.
First hand experience of working with local people, volunteers, trainees and children as
well as urban regeneration partners (e.g. local authorities, funding agencies, housing
developers, private industry).
Experience of staff and budget management.
Experience of raising funds from government, local authority and other sources.
Experience of staff recruitment and employment.
Experience of developing policies and procedures.
Area B
KNOWLEDGE
A high level of knowledge of funding regimes, especially landfill tax.
An understanding of habitat and species conservation, and of the principles of sustainable
land management.
A good understanding of methods of engaging local people.
A good working knowledge of Microsoft Word, Excel & PowerPoint.
A good working knowledge of e-mail and the internet.
Some knowledge of local biodiversity action planning and reporting (BARS) would be
desirable.
Area C
SKILLS
A degree in an appropriate discipline. (And preferably a higher degree in an appropriate
discipline.)
Excellent communication and interpersonal skills - especially the ability to write clearly and
concisely, and the ability to work constructively with people from a wide range of
backgrounds.
Ability to organise, motivate and guide colleagues.
Practical IT skills (see lists of expected experience and knowledge above).
Ability to organise own workload effectively and work largely under own initiative.
Ability to negotiate effectively and work productively with working partners, even when
dealing with contentious issues.
Ability to plan and manage complex work programmes and budgets.
A full driving license is essential.
Area D
PERSONAL QUALITIES
Mature, pragmatic, professional and business-like.
Highly motivated and enthusiastic with an ability to enthuse and motivate others.
Ability to think strategically.
Ability to meet tight deadlines and prioritise a highly demanding workload.
A strong sense of community partnership.
Ability to acquire new knowledge and develop new skills.
Ability to work supportively with a wide range of people on different levels.
Tact and diplomacy
A strong commitment to nature conservation

JOB DESCRIPTION
JOB TITLE:
Natural Flood Management Officer
JOB NO:
RESPONSIBLE TO:
RESPONSIBLE FOR:
Head of Conservation and Land Management
Volunteers, Student placements.
OVERALL PURPOSE OF JOB
To manage the four-year Working with Water project within the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership (SLLP). This involves managing the delivery of Natural Flood Management
(NFM) and water quality interventions, linking to habitat and species conservation work.
Thirteen sites have been identified for interventions to slow flows, reduce sediment loss and
enhance ecological connectivity. Also includes overseeing catchment ‘laboratory’ initiative
looking at the effects of NFM measures on a channel.
MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES
Manage delivery of the work on 13 project sites to include: slowing flows; tree planting, field
corner water storage, leaky dams, riparian buffer strips and ditch/pond/wetland creation.
Deliver specific targets around heathland/grassland mosaics, woodland planting and
enhancing watercourses and pond/wetland creation.
Oversee the catchment ‘laboratory’ initiative in conjunction with Sheffield Hallam University
Manage a project to identify, map and control a small number of invasive non-native species
(INNS) in strategically important areas.
Working with the Head of C&LM and the SLLP Project Manager and other partners/landowners
to promote working with water interventions, the SLLP and HLF.
Manage the project’s budget in accordance with funder’s rules and administer, commit and
spend grant monies according to SRWT’s financial guidelines.
Provide claim information and progress reports to feed into the quarterly claim schedule to HLF
and provide other information to funders, the project partners and others as required.
Lead on wider Trust communication work on promoting natural flood management.
Line manage and/or work with volunteers/trainees/student placements as required.
Ensure all work is undertaken to SRWT's policies (e.g. child welfare, equal opportunities,
environmental, procurement and health and safety policies).
Undertake any other duties, as requested by the Trust’s Chief Executive or the Head of C&LM,
in line with the aims of the SLLP and the grade of the post.

JOB SPECIFICATION
DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary: £28,130 pro rata per annum (0.2 FTE)
Pension:
Working Hours:
Location:
Entry to the Trust's stakeholder pension scheme is available
immediately, with an entitlement to a 9% employer's contribution after
a six-month probationary period.
The working week for this post is 7.5 hours exclusive of lunch breaks.
The post will involve some evening and weekend work for which time
off in lieu can be taken. Flexi-time does not apply although informal
arrangements can be made at the Chief Executive’s discretion.
The post will be based at the Trust’s Headquarters, at Victoria Hall.
However it is expected that the post holder will occasionally visit
other SRWT premises and will work throughout the SLLP area.
Probationary Period: All new employees are required to undertake a period of probation for
6 months, in which they will be expected to establish their suitability
for the post.
Annual Leave:
Length of Contract:
20 days holiday, plus 3 days to be taken between Christmas and
New Year, plus bank holidays pro rata. Staff will also receive a
holiday bonus of 1 day per year for the first five years of full time
service up to a maximum of 25 days per year. Annual leave
entitlement is pro rata for all part time staff.
The post is permanent subject to funding.
Transport provision: Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever practical.
(Please read SRWT environmental policy for further guidance).
However the post holder will have use of a pool of Trust vehicles
when needed.
Equal Opportunities: Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is striving to be an equal
opportunities employer and selection of applicants is based on merit.
Please refer to the enclosed policy document for further details.
Level of DBS
Required:
This post will not be subject to a DBS disclosure in line with our DBS
Policy and Procedures.

PERSON SPECIFICATION
This section deals with the knowledge, skills and expertise required for the post.
Please note it is not expected that candidates will necessarily have skills and
experience in all of the areas detailed, but this list will be used as a guide to assess
suitability for the post.
Area A
EXPERIENCE
At least 4 years substantial and relevant experience of environmental conservation in a
water context.
First hand experience of project development, land management and wet habitat creation.
First hand experience of working with farmers/private landowners, local people,
volunteers, trainees and project partners.
Experience of staff and budget management.
Experience of staff/volunteer recruitment and management.
Area B
KNOWLEDGE
Good specific knowledge of local wetland ecology including native species and INNS.
A good knowledge of HLF funding programmes.
An understanding of local water issues including flood risk, natural flood management and
water quality and how interventions to tackle these can also improve habitats and
conserve species.
A good understanding of methods of engaging local people.
A good working knowledge of Microsoft Word, Excel & PowerPoint.
A good working knowledge of e-mail and the internet.
Area C
SKILLS
A degree in an appropriate discipline. (And preferably a higher degree in an appropriate
discipline.)
Good leadership skills
Excellent communication and interpersonal skills - especially the ability to communicate
with farmers and write clearly and concisely.
Ability to organise, motivate and guide volunteers, trainees etc.
Practical IT skills (see lists of expected experience and knowledge above).
Ability to organise own workload effectively and work on own initiative.
Ability to negotiate effectively and work productively with working partners, even when
dealing with contentious issues.
Ability to plan and manage complex work programmes and budgets.
A full driving license is essential.
Area D
PERSONAL QUALITIES
Present a professional image of the Trust at all times
Highly motivated and enthusiastic with an ability to enthuse and motivate others.
Ability to think strategically.
Ability to meet tight deadlines, work autonomously and prioritise a highly demanding
workload.

Ability to work supportively with a wide range of people on different levels.
Tact and diplomacy
A strong commitment to landscape-scale conservation
Work to and promote the Trust’s Charitable Objectives, Strategy, policies and procedures,
including the Trust’s culture statement
Where appropriate, promote membership of the Trust
Undertake any other duties, as requested, in line with the level and nature of the post and
the aims of the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust.

SLLP Staffing Narrative
Name of Project
Working With Water – slowing the flow and improving water
quality
Sketch showing opportunity to create wet woodland and protect riparian strip from livestock at
Sick Brook, holding more water in the landscape and reducing soil erosion and localised pollution
Sponsoring partner
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
150 Word summary An existing part-time (0.8 FTE) member of SRWT staff will be
employed as a Natural Flood Management Officer (NFM) on an
additional 0.2 FTE to manage this project. This equates to
£28,130 over four years. This member of staff is ideally suited
to this role as involved during the development phase, so
knows the individual farmers and sites exceptionally well. He is
also an experienced ecologist, very familiar with the habitats
and species of the area and the particular issues and
opportunities that exist. Crucially he has the capacity, interest
and enthusiasm to see this project through delivery.
This member of staff and the project budgets will be overseen
by SRWT’s Head of Conservation and Land Management at
approximately 1 day/mth (0.05 FTE). This equates to £8,280
over the four years and will be included under FCR. This role is
crucial to ensure good line management of the post and good
budgetary control to ensure the CEO has confidence things will
run smoothly.

The Steel Valley Project
Job description
Employer: The Steel Valley Project
Job title: Project Manager
Grade/ Wage: Payscales 6 (£25,440) – 7 (£31,846) depending on experience. Currently 5% contribution to
pension (under review)
Responsible to: The Steel Valley Project, (SVP) Steering group and ultimately responsible to the Chair of
this group.
Responsible for: The SVP staff team, volunteer trainees and any other person who may be allocated to
the post holders responsibility.
Purpose of the job: To lead the SVP in achieving its objectives. These objectives include:
To promote the conservation, protection and improvement of the physical and natural
environment.
To conserve and enhance the countryside for its natural and cultural importance.
To make green spaces and the wider countryside more accessible to local comunities for informal
recreation.
To engage the communities in the environment through the provision of interpretation,
information, education, training and practical opportunities to in order to appreciate and improve
green spaces and the wider countryside.
Funding and contract duration: Permanent dependant on securing continued funding from a range of
sources.
1. Working Arrangements
Employment will be by the Steel Valley Project and salary payment will be through Sheffield City Council.
Salary: equivalent to Payscales 6 (£25,440) – 7 (£31,846) plus 5 % contribution to pension.
37 hours per week, flexible working will be in operation, and time off in lieu will be given, but no over time
is payable.
Sick pay arrangements are in accordance with statutory sick pay
25 days paid annual holiday, moving to 30 days after 5 years employment, plus statutory holidays.
3 month probationary period to be served.
Notice period: one month’s notice by either party.
2. Work location
With the other members of staff in offices and workshop based at: The Steel Valley Project offices, The
ARC, Manchester Rd, Stocksbridge, Sheffield, S36 2DT.
Sites for practical work and events can be through out the operational area of the SVP. This will
concentrate primarily on the Upper Don Zone of the South Yorkshire Forest including Stocksbridge and
Bradfield Parish in the North Sheffield urban fringe area. Work may be carried out outside this area as
opportunities arise.

Project Manager
JOB DESCRIPTION
Purpose of the Job
Specific Duties and Responsibilities.
Under the guidance of the SVP’s Steering group and trustees, the Project Manager should develop and
maintain a strategy for the Steel Valley Project. With the support of this group this will require you to:
Manage SVP staff and resources to comply with the Companies Act and Charity Commission
Regulations.
Recruit staff as required.
Manage and maintain health and safety and other policies and systems to ensure compliance with
relevant legislation, regulations, codes of practice and partner requirements.
Provide clearly defined long term aims and objectives
Identify short term priorities and programmes.
Specify targets and resource requirements.
Identify and secure sources of funding and manage respective budgets as part of the overall SVP
budget.
Provide all funders with reports and claims as required, with the support of the SVP Finance
Officer and other staff.
Report to and advise the Steering Group and Trustees.
Maintain a daily log of tasks and provide written and verbal reports to the quarterly meetings of
the Steering Group and Trustees.
Represent the SVP and develop effective partnerships with other agencies, organisations, local
authorities, schools, relevant community interest groups and individuals.
All duties and responsibilities to be carried out in accordance with agreed SVP policies and
procedures, in particular the SVP policies on Equal Opportunities and Health and Safety.
Practical conservation and countryside management
Prepare a rolling programme of countryside and conservation management projects. In liaison with
landowners and others: develop management plans, consulting with the wider community and
interested bodies and implement plans ensuring appropriate resources are identified.
With the Environmental Project Officer, prepare quotes and estimates for countryside and
conservation management works as required by land owners, local authorities and other
organisations.
Manage contractors and consultants as required.
Training
Develop a training strategy for Project Staff, volunteer trainees, community groups, the general
public, community groups and other bodies as appropriate.
Manage and facilitate training in countryside and conservation management skills such as:
o Boundaries: fencing; dry stone walling; hedgerow management; etc.
o Access: Footpath/multiuser routes and countryside furniture development and
management.
o Habitat management: woodland; heathland; grassland; wetland and riparian habitats.
Identify routes/schemes appropriate to trainees and volunteers such as government training
programmes, apprenticeships, etc. to support their work and training with the SVP.

Promotion/Publicity
Co-ordinate a programme and publicity and marketing in order to:
Raise the profile of the SVP in all aspects of the work it carries out. This may be through events,
presentations, press releases, interpretative materials, websites and social media.
Promote and develop the local community’s and wider public’s enjoyment of their local
countryside through the production of interpretative materials.
Develop and deliver a programme of events to engage as wide as possible cross section of the
public, private business sector, land owners and other agencies in understanding the value of, and
caring for, the unique natural and cultural heritage of the SVP project area.

JOB DESCRIPTION
Post Title:
Business Support Officer
Grade/Salary:
£16,393 - £19,939 (pro rata) Grade 2 - 3 (Sheffield Landscape Trust
pay structure)
Plus 2% Monthly Bonus + pension contribution
Working Hours:
15 hours per week (working pattern to be agreed)
Area:
Administration, HR & Marketing
Job Purpose:
To provide general administrative support and to co-ordinate office
based systems & procedures, provide HR support and use effective
marketing tools, liaising with the Project Manager and other officers.
Job Information:
The terms and conditions for this post are those as agreed by the
Management Committee and are outlined in the Contract of
Employment. These may be amended as a result of local negotiations.
Reporting to:
Project Manager

1. Role Within Context of The Organisation
The officer will act as a focal point for the administrative support of the works of the
Steel Valley Project in the project area in north Sheffield. The objectives of the
Project include:
Managing habitats for the benefit of wildlife, people, landscape and historical value
Encouraging access to the countryside and open green spaces
Developing and delivering environmental education projects
Involving individuals and the wider community in understanding and caring for the
environment, including training opportunities in countryside management and
conservation skills
a) Maintaining auditable financial records, including:
i. Petty cash records
ii. Human resource documents
iii. Reporting to Project Manager, steering group and management
committee relevant within scope of the role
b) Assisting with funding applications, supporting monitoring and review, and
preparation of returns, with officers and Project Manager.
i. Identifying, compiling and collating data. (Financial, statistical etc. as
required).
ii. Monitoring and reporting on expenditure as required by funding bodies.
iii. Liaising with funding bodies under direction of project officer/manager.
c) Payment of invoices (as authorised by the Project Manager).
d) Supporting the Project’s delivery of training initiatives such as volunteering
opportunities
e) Day to day maintenance of personnel records, new starters, holiday leave, sickness
recording, etc.
f) Taking minutes of staff and Steering Group meetings
g) Assisting other Officers in informing and involving the local community through
appropriate forms of publicity and communication
h) Assisting Officers in the preparation of training materials, event resources, etc.
i) Manage website with support of Project Manager and other officers
4. Other duties including:
Developing and maintaining filing systems
Answering telephone
Dealing with incoming and outgoing mail

Purchasing supplies, (office supplies, training materials, books etc.) as
authorised by the Project Manager
Typing, word processing and other office administrative tasks
Dealing with enquiries where appropriate or reporting to relevant officers

JOB DESCRIPTION
Post Title:
Environmental Project Officer
Grade/Salary:
£20,456 to £22,434 Grade 4 (pro-rata)
Plus 2% Monthly Bonus + pension contribution
Contract:
1 year temporary contract (with potential for extension)
Working Hours:
22.5 hours per week (working pattern to be agreed)
Area:
Project delivery
Job Purpose:
To implement access and environmental improvement works in
conjunction with a team of volunteers and trainees, involving the local
community and appropriate partners and landowners in its delivery,
liaising with the Project Manager and other officers.
Job Information:
The terms and conditions for this post are those as agreed by the
Management Committee and are outlined in the Contract of
Employment. These may be amended as a result of local negotiations.
Reporting to:
Project Manager

1. Role Within Context of The Organisation
The officer will act as a focal point for the administrative support of the works of the
Steel Valley Project in the project area in north Sheffield. The objectives of the
Project include:
Managing habitats for the benefit of wildlife, people, landscape and historical value
Encouraging access to the countryside and open green spaces
Developing and delivering environmental education projects
Involving individuals and the wider community in understanding and caring for the
environment, including training opportunities in countryside management and
conservation skills
2. Main Duties
Under the guidance of the Project Manager, the Environmental Project Officer should act as
a focal point for delivery of the Steel Valley Project. This will require you to:
Assist the Project Manager to identify and plan the programme for access and
environmental improvement works, involving appropriate implementation agencies
for its delivery.
Manage agreed budgets with support from the Project Manager & Finance Officer
and produce job quotes in liaison with partners & landowners.
Research and apply for small funding grants with support from the Project Manager &
Finance Officer, to facilitate SVP projects.
Implement the development of trails, countryside access projects and other
environmental improvement works including greenspace and habitat management
through the support of volunteers, trainees, community groups, partners &
landowners.
Recruit and manage teams of volunteers, giving them support & supervision, working
with the Project Manager to develop a programme of training for volunteers, trainees
and community groups.
Deliver work in accordance with office systems and develop volunteer systems with
support from the Project Manager.
Develop & deliver SVP procedures, working with external agencies to comply with
legal obligations and ongoing changes in best practice, including: DBS,
environmental permits, COSHH, PUWER, Health & Safety and Data Protection.
Work with other members of the SVP staff team to collaborate on projects, run
events, maintain normal delivery of services and cover absences.
Procure and maintain tools & equipment, ensuring health & safety, security and
monitoring procedures are adhered to.

Provide material for interpretation, briefings, publications, website, social media and
press releases, and represent SVP when communicating with partners, community
groups and funders.
Plan and deliver community events in collaboration with other staff and community
groups.
Plan and deliver interpretative and educational activities as agreed with the Project
Manager.
Collate annual statistical monitoring data as required by partners and funders and
keep up-to-date information on success stories & case studies for projects delivered
by SVP.
Provide administrative assistance to other team members as required.
Any other duties and responsibilities as may arise.
All duties and responsibilities should be carried out in accordance with the agreed policies
and procedures of the Steel Valley Project.

Environmental Project Officer notes:
1. 100 word narrative as to why and how you wish to engage existing or new staff
The Steel Valley Project runs all of its practical projects with the support of volunteers from a range
of backgrounds. This will be key during the delivery of SLLP projects and the Environmental Project
Officer will facilitate this, ensuring work is carried out in line with industry standards and health and
safety requirements. The Environmental Project Officer will work directly with volunteers, who will
receive supervision, training and support in a range of countryside skills during the SLLP projects
Steel Valley Project is delivering, leading to a range of positive outcomes including improved
understanding of the countryside and the issues effecting it and gaining of skills and training helping
with future employment prospects.
2. Post LCAP expectations and redundancy plans
This is a fixed term post, end of LCAP redundancy is a possibility that the Steel Valley Project is aware
of. Early consideration is that the officer will continue to work with the Trust in different compatible
role at the end of HLF funding.
3. Any HR Policies regarding open recruitment EO etc.
Please find the Steel Valley Project’s Equal Opportunities Policy attached.
4. How you intend to report/evidence expenditure to the SLLP core team.
This will be a salaried post with expenditure evidenced on timesheets to HLF alongside quarterly
claims.
New Staff posts or new contracts for existing posts or additional hours
5. Job Description for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP
Attached as Word document
6. Job specification for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP
Attached as Word document

THE STEEL VALLEY PROJECT
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY POLICY
The Steel Valley Project is working towards a policy of equal opportunity in employment and is
against all forms of unlawful or unfair discrimination against individuals or groups, on the
grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, age or
disability.
The Steel Valley Project will ensure that employees are treated equally and fairly. Any
recruitment, selection and training decisions are based only on objective and job related criteria.
As an equal opportunity employer, The Steel Valley Project is committed to ensure that all
employees, trainees and volunteers and other users of the Steel Valley Office, tools store, site
based operations and other activities: -
‣ Receives less favourable treatment or is discriminated against on the grounds of gender,
ethnic origin, disability or membership of any minority group. See Appendix A.
‣ Is disadvantaged by conditions or requirements, which cannot be shown to be justifiable.
In implementing the equal opportunity policy, The Steel Valley Project will: -
‣ Ensure that employees are provided with training and guidance to help develop an
understanding of discrimination faced by minority groups or individuals.
‣ Examine and review procedures for recruitment, selection, promotion and training.
‣ Encourage greater involvement and representation of minority groups among all employees,
trainees and volunteers and other users of the Steel Valley Office, tools store, site based
operations and other activities.
‣ Positively welcome all applicants.
‣ Develop ways of reporting and resolving any complaints or grievances.
‣ Give all employees equal opportunity to progress within the organisation.
‣ Ensure that procedures and selection criteria will be frequently reviewed in order to ensure
that individuals are selected, promoted and treated on the basis of their relevant merits and
abilities.
The Management and Board of Directors fully support this policy statement
Signed ....................................................... Roger Moss (Chairman)
Date .............................................………..
1

APPENDIX A
Post 16 Disability Discrimination Act Statement
The Steel Valley Project recognises that people with disabilities should have the same
opportunities as non disabled people to benefit wherever possible from whatever training or other
related provision available.
To this end The Steel Valley Project will ensure that it applies non discriminatory procedures and
practices in relation to:
‣ Recruitment of all employees, trainees and volunteers and other users of the Steel Valley
Office, tools store, site based operations and other activities.
‣ The terms on which offers for employment or other activities are made.
‣ The refusal or deliberate omission of acceptance of an application for employment or other
activities
‣ Provision of services provided wholly or mainly for employment or other activities – this
includes recreation, leisure, catering facilities or accommodation. In such areas of provision,
The Steel Valley Project makes all reasonable adjustments where existing arrangements place
disabled students at a substantial disadvantage.
The Steel Valley Project will take reasonable steps to find out about a person’s disability in
accordance with the Governments’ guidelines and will be proactive in encouraging people to
disclose a disability.
This will include:
‣ Asking applicants to declare their disability on application or other forms.
‣ Publicizing the provision that is made for disabled people.
‣ Ensuring that the atmosphere and culture at The Steel Valley Project is open and welcoming
so that disabled people feel safe to disclose a disability.
The Steel Valley Project recognises the Data Protection Act restricts the processing of personal
data and ‘sensitive’ personal data about individuals
Information about an individual’s disability is classified as sensitive personal data and is
particularly restricted. However, in attempting to avoid employees, trainees and volunteers and
other users of the Steel Valley Office, tools store, site based operations and other activities being
discriminated against, The Steel Valley Project may need to pass data about disabled students
onto members of staff or others –The Steel Valley Project recognises that in this situation, the
sensitive data is still restricted by the Data Protection Act.
In order to ensure The Steel Valley Project is not in breach of either law, it will:
‣ Ask employees, trainees and volunteers and other users of the Steel Valley Office, tools store,
site based operations and other activities, permission to pass on information.
‣ Alert employees, trainees and volunteers and other users of the Steel Valley Office, tools
store, site based operations and other activities to the use that will be made of information
when asking them to disclose disability on application or other forms.
‣ Ensure appropriate procedures are in place to keep sensitive and other information
confidential.
2

JOB DESCRIPTION
Job Title:
Responsible to :
Responsible for:
Salary:
Duration:
Community Ecologist
Wildscapes Consultancy Manager
Casual and Seasonal Ecologists, Volunteers
Project Officer 1 Pro Rata 2 days per week
SLLP project duration
OVERALL PURPOSE
To provide ecological expertise and support to the Sheffield Lakeland Landscape
Partnership. To deliver and assist in the delivery of core project outcomes. The role will
involve working with, supporting and leading volunteer species-interest groups, the
general public, contractors and partner organisation employees. The successful
candidate will be expected to provide suitable training to these organisations to allow
them to deliver their projects with limited impacts on sensitive or protected wildlife and
habitats. The successful candidate will be required to engage with species specialists to
obtain specific advice or surveys to allow delivery of SLLP projects. You will be required
to lead and/or assist in the undertaking of ecological surveys, ecological clerk of works,
creation of habitat management plans and writing of ecological reports. Community
engagement will also be of key importance as you will be required to assist at public
events and deliver public presentations on the projects. The role will also involve the
production and submission of regular reports to the Heritage Lottery Fund to show project
progress.
MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES
Provide detailed and considered advice and recommendations with regard to survey
construction, species management and conservation management advice for your
species and habitat specialism.
Oversee the delivery of the project outcomes relating to barn owl, water vole,
woodland birds (willow tit, flycatchers and nightjar).
Supporting individual project managers and other specialists in the delivery of projects.
Provide advice / support on appropriate management and working methods for
sensitive and protected habitats and species.
With the Wildscapes Consultancy Manager, develop and deliver ecology training
modules for project personnel, partner organisations and the general public.
With the project personnel, develop and deliver presentations / community
engagement days within the SLLP area.

Co-ordinate, assist and oversee the species project work of partner organisations and
Volunteer groups as required.
Ensure excellent partner and volunteer group relationships and that work is completed
to the standard expected by the SLLP.
Produce reports / management plans in an accurate and timely manner representing
the consultancy professionally and meeting the needs of the standard expected by the
SLLP.
Provide/co-ordinate GIS input for the SLLP as required.
With the Consultancy Manager, manage and maintain Wildscapes Ecology Service
tools & equipment.
With the Consultancy Manager, ensure an excellent level of health and safety across
all ecological contracts and adhere to Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust Health
and Safety Policy and Procedures.
Contribute to and engage with the work of the Trust, including in campaigns and allstaff
activities.
Deliver all according to SRWT's policies (e.g. environmental, HR and health and safety
policies).
Work unsociable hours as required by the business in order to deliver specific projects.
Present a professional image of the Trust and Consultancy at all times
Any other relevant duties required of the postholder appropriate to this grade.

ABOUT WILDSCAPES CONSULTANCY
Wildscapes Consultancy delivers contracts both through Sheffield and Rotherham
Wildlife Trust and the subsidiary ‘Wildscapes Community Interest Company’ (CIC). All
staff are employed by the Trust.
Wildscapes ‘in Trust’ activity focuses on operations within the Trust’s own area of
operation, i.e. Sheffield and urban Rotherham. Where contract opportunities extend
beyond the Trust’s area of interest, contracts are delivered through the CIC.
The CIC has its own small Board of Directors and is wholly owned by the Trust.
Unaudited annual accounts are submitted with the Trust’s own audited accounts.
Turnover across services is steady with the potential to increase with further business
and client development.
Currently the main services offered are:
Land Management eg site maintenance, school grounds, tree planting, soft
landscaping, heather moorland restoration, habitat maintenance and creation
Ecology eg protected species surveys, licensing, mitigation, habitat management
plans, Nature Reserves management plans, planning and architect support.
In addition, Wildscapes has developed a Wildplay catalogue aimed at offering schools a
range of products and services (working with the Outdoor Learning team at the Trust) to
encourage learning about nature and wildlife in school grounds.
Further information about the consultancy can be made available for candidates
shortlisted for interview.
ABOUT SHEFFIELD AND ROTHERHAM
WILDLIFE TRUST
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is one of 47 Wildlife Trusts working to make the
United Kingdom a better place for people and wildlife. We are the biggest voluntary
sector nature conservation and environmental regeneration organisation in South
Yorkshire, supported by nearly 6,000 members and many volunteers.
We are part of the local community, working to protect and enhance the environment of
Sheffield and Rotherham for the benefit of people and wildlife. The Trust manages 12
Nature Reserves including Greno Woods, Wyming Brook, Blacka Moor, Sunnybank and
Centenary Riverside and recent projects include the delivery of natural flood risk
management schemes on the Rother and recording the return of the otter along the River
Don. The Trust delivers a great programme of activities throughout the year to inspire
people of all ages to learn about nature and enjoy being outdoors. We also take action
for wildlife and green spaces under threat, including campaigning to save an ancient
woodland and local wildlife site, Smithy Wood, from being turned into a motorway service
station. For more information about our work please visit www.wildsheffield.com or
phone 0114 263 4335 or email: mail@wildsheffield.com
With more than 800,000 members, the Wildlife Trusts are the largest UK voluntary
organisation dedicated to conserving the full range of the UK's habitats and species.
Collectively we manage over 2,300 nature reserves covering more than 90,000 hectares.

PERSON SPECIFICATION
This section deals with the knowledge, skills and expertise required for the post. Please note this
list will be used as a guide to assess suitability for the post.
Area A
EXPERIENCE
Essential
At least 4 years’ experience delivering specialised protected species and/or habitat
projects for research, conservation or commercial purposes.
At least 4 years’ experience of carrying out training relating to protected or sensitive
species and/or habitats.
Experience of delivering public community engagement events, including activities,
presentations and basic ecological training events.
Experience of designing habitat management plans (woodland, grassland, wetland
preferred).
Experience in carrying out extended phase 1 habitat surveys including detailed
botanical species lists.
Leading and assisting on protected species surveys for at least one or more of the
following: bats; barn owls; water voles; raptors; woodland birds or other specialist
floral or faunal groups.
Experience of ecological clerk of works particularly in relation to habitat restoration
projects (woodland and wetland).
Experience of writing ecological reports for clients.
Area B
KNOWLEDGE
Essential
Excellent understanding of nature conservation and ecology (including survey
techniques).
Good knowledge of project management processes.
An excellent working knowledge of Health and Safety in relation to ecology contract
delivery.
IT systems including Microsoft Office – Word, Excel etc.
GIS (ideally QGIS).
Area C
SKILLS and QUALIFICATIONS
Essential
Degree in Ecology or related subject or substantial work experience.
Full driving licence.
Excellent level of proficiency in practical ecology skills.
Excellent interpersonal and communication skills to work with project personnel,
contractors, staff, volunteers and the general public.
Excellent written skills.
Desirable
First Aid at Work certificate or equivalent.
Associate/Graduate member of the Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental
Management (CIEEM).

Formal training qualifications.
Area D
PERSONAL QUALITIES
Essential
Ability to organise, manage and prioritise work, without supervision, in order to meet
tight deadlines and deliver well-planned work schedules.
Can work cooperatively as part of a team and independently with minimal supervision.
Reliable, pragmatic, professional and business-like.
Able to work unsociable hours as required by the needs of the business (e.g. to
support bat surveys).
Ability to liaise effectively and build good working relationships with a wide variety of
individuals and organisations.
A commitment to the work of the Wildlife Trust and the contribution that Wildscapes
makes to this work.

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary:
Pension:
Working Hours:
Location:
£21,991.25 per annum (0.4 FTE)
Entry to the Trust's Auto Enrolment pension scheme is available with an
entitlement to a 9% employer's contribution for qualifying staff.
The working week for this post is either 15 hours, exclusive of lunch
breaks. The post may involve some evening and weekend. Flexi-time
may apply at the Chief Executive’s discretion.
The post will be based at the Trust’s Headquarters, at Victoria Hall.
However it is expected that the post holder will visit other SRWT premises
and project sites and will work throughout Sheffield, Rotherham and local
area.
Probationary Period: All new employees are required to undertake a period of probation in their
first 6 months of employment, in which they are expected to establish their
suitability for the post.
Annual Leave:
Length of Contract:
Annual leave entitlement is pro rata for all part time staff. 20 days holiday,
plus 3 days to be taken between Christmas and New Year, plus bank
holidays pro rata. Staff will also receive a holiday bonus of 1 day per year
for the first five years of full time service up to a maximum of 25 days per
year.
4 years, subject to business performance.
Transport provision: Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever practical.
However the post holder will have use of a pool of Trust vehicles when
needed.
Equal Opportunities: Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust is striving to be an equal
opportunities employer and selection of applicants is based on merit.
Please request the relevant policy document for further details.
Level of DBS required: None

Project manager and Community Ecologist notes:
Costs
Line manager - Me - DM rate - 1 day per month = £1836.92 per year
Community ecologist - PO1 rate - 2 days per week = £8796.50 per year
Cost per year - £10,633.42
Total for 4 years - £42,529.69
Cheers,
Jon
1. 100 word narrative as to why and how you wish to engage existing or new staff
Habitat and species conservation and community engagement remain the core activities of the SLLP.
The majority of proposed projects require ecological input at a regulatory level (ensuring
compliance/avoiding unnecessary impacts) and/or design and delivery level (ensuring conservation
objectives are met) with community engagement (ensuring the importance of projects is understood,
increasing the chance of long-term success). The ecologists engaged within the project development
phase have proven the value of a dedicated internal team providing advice and skills across projects.
The advantage of a core post is the avoidance of project outcome conflicts and the integration of
otherwise separate delivery goals.
2. Post LCAP expectations and redundancy plans
Community Ecologist
This is a fixed term post, end of LCAP redundancy is a possibility that the Wildlife Trust is aware of.
This will be a newly created role of two days a week to support the SLLP. As this role would be managed
by the existing consultancy manager it is intended that this post will be advertised as a minimum three
days a week role with the additional days paid for by, and used to expand the existing consultancy
training and ecology capacity. Following the completion of the landscape partnership project it is
hoped that the post will have proved sufficiently successful within the consultancy to justify the two
days being absorbed by the consultancy.
3. Any HR Policies regarding open recruitment EO etc.
Attached as PDF
4. How you intend to report/evidence expenditure to the SLLP core team.
This will be a salaried post with expenditure evidenced to HLF against quarterly claims.
New Staff posts or new contracts for existing posts or additional hours
5. Job Description for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP

Project Manager - Consultancy Manager job description and job specification attached
Community Ecologist Job description and job specification attached
6. Job specification for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP
Project Manager - Consultancy Manager job description and job specification attached
Community Ecologist Job description and job specification attached
Attached as PDF
Al of these as PDFs or Word Documents
Deadline 31 st January 2018

The Job:
Land Management Assistant- Landscape partnership project
Responsible To:
Wildscapes Sites Supervisor
Purpose of Job
To help facilitate the delivery of high quality practical conservation, grounds maintenance and soft
landscaping projects across the landscape partnership region.
Main Responsibilities
1. Delivery Landscape partnership projects according to specifications and method statements
agreed by Wildscapes Team Leader and Wildscapes Sites Supervisor and Landscape
partnership project manager.
2. Adhere to Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust Health & Safety Policy and Procedures:
a. Safe use of tools, equipment
b. Tool store
c. Ensure sites are left in safe and secure condition
d. Reporting any incidents.
3. Contribute to the effective running of the Operational Base including:
a. Tool maintenance
b. Materials stock
c. Equipment check.
4. Occasional supervision of the landscape partnership delivery team.
.
Job Specification

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary:
0.4 FTE of £15268.20 per annum
Working Hours:
Part time 0.4 FTE on average 15 hours per week. Normal working will
involve additional days to existing working week. This will vary from week to
week depending on work levels. Normal working week Monday to Friday
(8am to 4pm) although occasional evening, weekend and bank holiday
working will be required for which time off in lieu (TOIL) will be given.
During peak times there may be a compulsory increase in hours on certain
contracts for which overtime at the standard rate will be paid.
Location:
The post is based at Sheffield Wildlife Trust Stokes Depot in Sheffield City
Centre and also Sheffield Wildlife Trust HQ (Stafford Road) with daily travel
required to worksites across the region.
Annual Leave:
0.4 FTE of SWT standard 20 days per year plus an additional three days to be
taken between Christmas and New Year.
Length of Contract:
Subject to funding of Landscape Partnership project.
Transport provision:
Suitable transport to and from work sites will provided in Trust vehicles.
Equal Opportunities:
Wildscapes is an equal opportunities employer and selection of applicants is
based on merit
Person Specification

Experience
• At least six months experience of delivering high quality practical conservation, grounds
maintenance and soft landscaping projects to a variety of clients.
• Demonstrable experience of some or all of the following: post and rail fencing, post and wire
fencing, tree / hedge planting, coppicing, scrub clearance, tree felling, footpath construction
and maintenance, pond clearance and creation, invasive species control, drystone walling,
hedgelaying, grassland and moorland management (including heather spreading and plug
planting), countryside furniture construction (benches, bridges, boardwalks and gates).
• Practical habitat creation, improvement and management works – especially moorland
conservation such as brash spreading, tree planting and sphagnum moss translocation
Knowledge
• Health and safety principles and procedures in the workplace
• Nature conservation and grounds maintenance
• Key considerations for successful delivery of contract work.
Qualifications
• A licence to use at least one of the following – chainsaws, brushcutters, woodchippers,
dumpers, mini excavators and pesticides (highly desirable)
• Full driving licence (desirable).
• Trailer towing licence (desirable).
• First Aid certificate (desirable).
Skills
• Ability to work cooperatively as part of a small team but also independently with minimal
supervision.
• A broad range of practical conservation, soft landscaping and grounds maintenance skills.
• Good verbal and written communication.
Personal Qualities
• Ability to work under own initiative.
• Attention to detail with a keen eye for quality.
• High level of enthusiasm, motivation and optimistic outlook.
• Commitment to high levels of customer service.
• A commitment to biodiversity, conservation and the principles of sustainable development.
• Flexibility to adapt to the working needs of the business.
• Business and profit focused.
• Good level of physical fitness and the ability to work on remote sites not accessible by vehicle.
• Flexibility in personal circumstances to allow availability to work at short notice.

The Job:
Site Supervisor (Land Management) Landscape partnership
project
Responsible To:
Responsible For:
Wildscapes Team Leader/ Landscape partnership project manager
Wildscapes land management Landscape partnership, team staff
including casual workers and sub contractors when on-site*
Purpose of Job
To have on-site day to day operational responsibility for the delivery of high quality practical
conservation, grounds maintenance and soft landscaping projects across the Land scape partnership
working region.
* responsibility for all off-site line management functions relating to land team staff (such as supervisions and handling discipline) would be carried out by the
Wildscapes Team Leader.

Job Specification
Main Responsibilities
1. Delivery of commissioned contracts according to specifications and method statements agreed
with the Wildscapes Team Leader/ Landscape partnership project manager. Responsibility for
all day to day operational matters including, but not limited to, ordering materials*, risk
assessments, assisting with pricing and site visits, practical works and on-site team
management.
2. Adhere to and enforce Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust Health & Safety Policy and
Procedures including:
a. Safe use of tools, equipment.
b. Tool store.
c. Ensure sites are left in safe and secure condition.
d. Reporting any incidents.
e. Risk assessment.
f. Safeguarding.
3. Contribute to the effective running of the Operational Base including:
a. Tool maintenance.
b. Materials stock.
c. Equipment check.
d. Vehicle checks.
4. Supervisory responsibility for the land management team when delivering work for the
Landscape partnership project.
5. Liaising with clients.
6. Any other duties relevant to this post in line with current responsibility levels.
* Landscape partnership project manager will have overall responsibility for control of budgets and purchases made.
.
Details of employment

Salary
0.3 FTE of £16181.02 per annum.
Working Hours:
Part time 0.3 FTE on average 11.25 hours per week. Normal working will
involve additional days to new non-sllp working week. This will vary from
week to week depending on work levels. Normal working week Monday to
Friday (8am to 4pm) although occasional evening, weekend and bank
holiday working will be required for which time off in lieu (TOIL) will be
given. During peak times there may be a compulsory increase in hours on
certain contracts for which overtime at the standard rate will be paid.
Location:
The post is based at Sheffield Wildlife Trust Stokes Depot in Sheffield City
Centre and also Sheffield Wildlife Trust HQ (Stafford Road) with daily travel
required to worksites across the region.
Annual Leave:
0.3 FTE of SWT standard 20 days per year plus an additional three days to be
taken between Christmas and New Year.
Length of Contract:
Subject to funding of Landscape Partnership project.
Transport provision:
Suitable transport to and from work sites will provided in Trust vehicles.
Equal Opportunities:
Wildscapes is an equal opportunities employer and selection of applicants is
based on merit

Person Specification
Knowledge and Experience
• At least one year’s experience of supervising on-site teams and delivering high quality practical
conservation, grounds maintenance and soft landscaping projects to a variety of clients.
• Demonstrable experience of the majority of the following: post and rail fencing, post and wire
fencing, tree / hedge planting, coppicing, scrub clearance, tree felling, footpath construction
and maintenance, pond clearance and creation, invasive species control, drystone walling,
hedgelaying, grassland and moorland management (particularly heather spreading),
countryside furniture construction (benches, bridges, boardwalks and gates).
• Good experience of habitat creation and management – in particular in schools and moorland
environments.
• Demonstrable experience of adhering to health and safety principles and procedures.
• Good knowledge of nature conservation and ecology (particularly urban ecology).
• Good knowledge of practical site management issues and land management techniques.
• Excellent appreciation for the needs of a commercial organisation and the local marketplace.
Qualifications
• Current qualifications (strongly desirable) (including but not limited to) the use of chainsaws,
brushcutters, woodchippers, dumpers, excavators and pesticides.
• Full driving licence (essential).
• Trailer towing licence (desirable).
• First Aid at Work certificate (essential).
Skills
• Ability to lead and work cooperatively as part of a small team but also independently from line
manager with minimal supervision.
• A broad range of practical conservation, soft landscaping and grounds maintenance skills.
• Strong leadership and organisational skills.
• Ability to network and build relationships.
• Good verbal and written communication – including tact and diplomacy.
• Ability to manage and maintain tools and resources.
Personal Qualities
• Ability to work under own initiative and meet deadlines.
• Attention to detail with a keen eye for quality control.
• High level of enthusiasm, motivation and optimistic outlook.
• Commitment to high levels of customer service.
• A commitment to biodiversity, conservation and the principles of sustainable development.
• Flexibility to adapt to the working needs of the business.
• Business and profit focused.
• Good level of physical fitness and the ability to work on remote sites not accessible by vehicle.

JOB DESCRIPTION
Job Title:
Responsible to :
Responsible for:
Salary:
Duration:
Wildscapes Consultancy Manager
Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust CEO
Ecology Team, Land Management Team and Admin Assistant
£32,984.39 pa + 9% employee pension contribution entitlement
Permanent, subject to business performance
OVERALL PURPOSE
To lead and develop the Wildscapes social enterprise by developing excellent customer
networks and relationships, tendering for work and managing the Wildscapes Team to ensure
an excellent standard of professional contract delivery in ecology, land management and
related services.
This post will also be part of the Executive Team for the Trust.
MAIN RESPONSIBILITIES
Wildscapes Consultancy Manager Role
Delivering the expected financial return to support the Trust and Wildscapes’ ongoing
activity by:
Securing new work and realising new business opportunities for all aspects of
Wildscapes activity
Building excellent customer relationships and ensuring work is completed to the
standard expected by the client.
Line managing and supporting the Wildscapes staff to ensure they have the
appropriate skills, certificates and expertise to undertake their work.
Managing the Wildscapes work schedule efficiently and effectively, ensuring
contracts are delivered within agreed budgets, cash flow, timescales and quality
expectations
Developing and pricing work for tenders, ensuring the team proactively responds to
opportunities in a timely and professional way
Overseeing, and when required, supporting teams in on-site delivery when
necessary.
Ensuring Wildscapes contributes to the effective running of the joint SRWT and
Wildscapes operational base, including managing Wildscapes stock and
maintaining equipment.

Ensuring excellent health and safety and a high quality of delivery across all
projects.
Working with the SRWT CEO and the Marketing Team to proactively market and
target existing and potential customers
Working with the SRWT CEO to develop and expand the social enterprise, shaping
annual business plans and setting financial targets and then reporting against
them.
Developing and maintaining a network of partners and sub-contractors/associates
who can offer extended services and/or complement Wildscapes services.
With Support Services, managing the Wildscapes budget and finances, including
raising purchase orders and invoices and contacting customer for payment, if
required.
Delivering all according to SRWT's policies (e.g. environmental, HR and health and
safety policies)
Presenting a professional image of the Trust and Consultancy at all times
Executive Team Role
Working with other Senior Staff and the CEO as part of the Exec Team by:
Actively seeking out opportunities and taking forward the long-term strategic
development of the Trust and Wildscapes.
Leading by example, showing commitment to the Trust’s Charitable Objectives,
Strategy, Annual Business Plan and Policies and by demonstrating our Culture
Statement and Exec Team Charter in day-to-day activity.

ABOUT WILDSCAPES CONSULTANCY
Wildscapes Consultancy delivers contracts both through Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife
Trust and the subsidiary ‘Wildscapes Community Interest Company’ (CIC). All staff are
employed by the Trust.
Wildscapes ‘in Trust’ activity focuses on operations within the Trust’s own area of
operation, i.e. Sheffield and urban Rotherham. Where contract opportunities extend
beyond the Trust’s area of interest, contracts are delivered through the CIC.
The CIC has its own small Board of Directors and is wholly owned by the Trust. Unaudited
annual accounts are submitted with the Trust’s own audited accounts.
Turnover across services is steady with the potential to increase with further business and
client development.
Currently the main services offered are:
Land Management eg site maintenance, school grounds, tree planting, soft
landscaping, heather moorland restoration, habitat maintenance and creation
Ecology eg protected species surveys, licensing, mitigation, habitat management
plans, Nature Reserves management plans, planning and architect support.
In addition, Wildscapes has developed a Wildplay catalogue aimed at offering schools a
range of products and services (working with the Outdoor Learning team at the Trust) to
encourage learning about nature and wildlife in school grounds.
Further information about the consultancy can be made available for candidates shortlisted
for interview.
ABOUT SHEFFIELD AND ROTHERHAM
WILDLIFE TRUST
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust is one of 47 Wildlife Trusts working to make the
United Kingdom a better place for people and wildlife. We are the biggest voluntary sector
nature conservation and environmental regeneration organisation in South Yorkshire,
supported by nearly 6,000 members and many volunteers.
We are part of the local community, working to protect and enhance the environment of
Sheffield and Rotherham for the benefit of people and wildlife. The Trust manages 12
Nature Reserves including Greno Woods, Wyming Brook, Blacka Moor, Sunnybank and
Centenary Riverside and recent projects include the delivery of natural flood risk
management schemes on the Rother and recording the return of the otter along the River
Don. The Trust delivers a great programme of activities throughout the year to inspire
people of all ages to learn about nature and enjoy being outdoors. We also take action for
wildlife and green spaces under threat, including campaigning to save an ancient
woodland and local wildlife site, Smithy Wood, from being turned into a motorway service
station. For more information about our work please visit www.wildsheffield.com or phone
0114 263 4335 or email: mail@wildsheffield.com
With more than 800,000 members, the Wildlife Trusts are the largest UK voluntary
organisation dedicated to conserving the full range of the UK's habitats and species.
Collectively we manage over 2,300 nature reserves covering more than 90,000 hectares.

PERSON SPECIFICATION
Please note this will be used to assess suitability for the post.
Area A
EXPERIENCE
Essential Experience
At least 3 years substantial and relevant experience of successfully managing and
delivering land management and/or ecology contracts in a commercial/social enterprise
environment including:
o Seeking out new contract work e.g. through networking, marketing
o Pricing, tendering and successfully securing ecology and/or land management
contracts
o Devising and delivering ecological and/or land management work
o Working with a team to deliver contracts as well as supervising subcontractors,
suppliers etc.
o Implementing quality checks and health & safety procedures
o Managing a tool store, related stock, equipment checks and maintenance
o Liaising with customers and clients on-site
Experience of securing new business and contracts up to 100k as a minimum
Experience in line management, preferably of a multidisciplinary team
Experience of managing multiple contracts at any one time
Project management experience, including budgeting and financial monitoring, team
scheduling, meeting deadlines and delivering to agreed standards and procedures
Experience of developing and maintaining excellent customer/client relationships
across a range of organisations – schools, community groups, small and large
businesses, large conservation charities, local authorities etc
Desirable:
Significantly growing and developing a social enterprise or similar business
Experience of securing new business and contracts >100k as a minimum
Area B
KNOWLEDGE
Essential
Excellent working knowledge of tendering, project and contract management
Excellent knowledge of Health and Safety in relation to on-site delivery
Excellent practical knowledge of at least two of the following areas: habitat and species
conservation, species surveying and mitigation, site management, grounds
maintenance, practical conservation management, land management
Good working knowledge of the Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint.
Desirable
Knowledge of sites and relevant customer base in Sheffield, Rotherham and
surrounding area of operation

Area C
SKILLS and QUALIFICATIONS
Essential
Degree or equivalent vocational qualification in a relevant subject
Relevant post graduate or professional qualification eg: several higher level
NPTC/Lantra qualifications, BREEAM, EIA or similar expertise, protected species
licenses
Membership of CIEEM or similar
Excellent level of proficiency in ecology and/or practical conservation & land
management skills
Ability to identify and realise new business opportunities
Excellent team leader, able to support and mentor staff and trainees
Excellent interpersonal and communication skills
Excellent understanding of customer care
Excellent financial skills to price services and ensure competitiveness and cost
effectiveness
Ability to solve problems and suggest sound alternative solutions to clients
Excellent written skills for the purposes of report writing, compiling quotes and tender
submissions
Full driving licence
Area D
PERSONAL QUALITIES
Essential
Commitment to the work of the Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust and the
contribution that Wildscapes makes as a social enterprise.
Highly motivated, enthusiastic and entrepreneurial – ambitious for the business to
succeed
Pragmatic, professional and business-minded
Well organised and reliable - able to work with the pressure of multiple deadlines
Personable and able to build excellent working relationships

DETAILS OF EMPLOYMENT
Salary:
Pension:
Working Hours:
Location:
£32,984.39 per annum
Entry to the Trust's Auto Enrolment pension scheme is available with an
entitlement to a 9% employer's contribution for qualifying staff.
The working week for this post is 37.5 hours, exclusive of lunch breaks.
The post may involve some evening and weekend work for which time off
in lieu can be taken. Flexi-time does not apply although informal
arrangements can be made at the Chief Executive’s discretion.
The post will be based at the Trust’s Headquarters, at Victoria Hall.
However it is expected that the post holder will visit other SRWT premises
and project sites and will work throughout Sheffield, Rotherham and local
area.
Probationary Period: All new employees are required to undertake a period of probation in their
first 6 months of employment, in which they are expected to establish their
suitability for the post.
Annual Leave:
Length of Contract:
Annual leave entitlement is pro rata for all part time staff. 20 days holiday,
plus 3 days to be taken between Christmas and New Year, plus bank
holidays pro rata. Staff will also receive a holiday bonus of 1 day per year
for the first five years of full time service up to a maximum of 25 days per
year.
Permanent, subject to business performance.
Transport provision: Trust staff are required to use public transport wherever practical.
However the post holder will have use of a pool of Trust vehicles when
needed.
Equal Opportunities: Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust is striving to be an equal opportunities
employer and selection of applicants is based on merit. Please request the
relevant policy document for further details.
Level of DBS required: None

Wildscapes land team notes:
1. 100 word narrative as to why and how you wish to engage existing or new staff
The SLLP projects require a delivery team for the land management projects. We will be looking to
engage two additional part time posts. LPP hours will be used in combination with a standard contract
for delivering commercial land management contracts. This will enable us to develop skills, knowledge
and experience within the team. Having this in-house knowledge allows us to retain it when it would
otherwise be lost after the project has finished. We can then use the additional skills gained as a team
to take Wildscapes and its staff in the direction forged during the project.
2. Post LCAP expectations and redundancy plans
Site supervisor and Land management Assistant
These are fixed term posts, end of SLLP redundancy is a possibility that the Wildlife Trust is aware of.
These will be a newly created roles of two days a week to support the SLLP. As these roles would be
managed by the existing consultancy manager it is intended that these posts will be advertised as a
minimum three days a week roles with the additional days paid for by, and used to expand the existing
consultancy land management capacity. Following the completion of the landscape partnership
project it is hoped that the posts will have proved sufficiently successful within the consultancy to
justify the two days being absorbed by the consultancy.
3. Any HR Policies regarding open recruitment EO etc.
Attached as PDF Keith do you already have these from someone else?
4. How you intend to report/evidence expenditure to the SLLP core team.
This post will be part salaried by the LPP with expenditure evidenced to HLF against quarterly claims.
5. Job Description for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP
Site supervisor Job description and person specification
Land Management assistant job description and person specification
6. Job specification for the work you wish them to carry out under SLLP
Site supervisor Job description and person specification
Land Management assistant job description and person specification
Attached as PDF
Al of these as PDFs or Word Documents
Deadline 31 st January 2018

Appendix 18
Confirmation of Match Funding

CULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
Parks and Countryside
Director of Culture and Environment: Paul Billington
Level 3, Westwing,
Moorfoot Building,
Sheffield
S1 4PL
Tel: 0114 2734481
e-mail: richard.harris@sheffield.gov.uk
Ref:
Date: 29 th March 2018
Dear Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust
Confirmation of Match Funding for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
I can confirm that Sheffield City Council Ecology Unit will contribute the following match
fund towards the ‘Bringing Local Wildlife Sites into positive management’ project by
providing £8,000 during the delivery phase of this project:-
This will comprise £2,000 per financial year for the following years:
2018/19
2019/20
2020/21
2021/22
This will be our match funding towards the Heritage Lottery Funded project (subject to
confirmation) over the period of the project.
Yours sincerely
Richard Harris
Ecology Manager
"We aim to ensure that you fully understand the
contents of this correspondence. We welcome any
feedback you may have on how we can improve our
communication with you".
Large print versions of this letter
are available by telephoning (0114)
2734130
FSC SUPPLIER
FSC Trademark © 1996 Forest Stewardship Council AC
FSC: The sign of well managed forests
SA-FM/COC-1352 (Indfor 012)

CULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
Parks and Countryside
Director of Culture and Environment: Paul Billington
Level 3, Westwing,
Moorfoot Building,
Sheffield
S1 4PL
Tel: 0114 2053787 Mob 07966 372022
e-mail: dave.aspinall@sheffield.gov.uk
Ref:DA/18/09/18 Date: 18 th May 2018
Dear Sheffield Wildlife Trust
Confirmation of Match Funding for Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
I can confirm that Sheffield City Council Woodlands Team will contribute the following;-
Woodland Heart, up to £70,000 timber sales years 2-4, (intent)
Woodland Heart Section 106 SVP, £16,860 (confirmed)
PROW improvement, £5,000 year 1 (confirmed)
Hidden Histories, £15,000 per year 1 & 2 (confirmed)
Hidden Histories, £15,000 per year 3 & 4 (intent)
This will be our match funding towards the Heritage Lottery Funded project (subject to
confirmation) over the period of the project.
Yours sincerely
Dave Aspinall , Countryside Manager
"We aim to ensure that you fully understand the
contents of this correspondence. We welcome any
feedback you may have on how we can improve our
communication with you".
Large print versions of this letter
are available by telephoning (0114)
2734130
FSC SUPPLIER
FSC Trademark © 1996 Forest Stewardship Council AC
FSC: The sign of well managed forests
SA-FM/COC-1352 (Indfor 012)

Keith Tomkins
Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust
37 Stafford Road
Sheffield
S2 2SF
Dear Keith
Re: Match funding for SLLP
I can confirm it is the intent of the Conservation and Land Management department of
Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust to provide £20,000 in match funding over four years -
£5,000/per annum. We have a number of charitable trust and landfill tax bids in train,
which we’d intend contributing towards this commitment including a bid to Veolia for
£25,640 for our Rivelin nature reserves.
Please let me know if you need any further information.
Yours sincerely,
Roy Mosley
Head of Conservation and Land Management
Sheffield & Rotherham Wildlife Trust, Victoria Hall, 37 Stafford Road, Sheffield, S2 2SF
T: (0114) 263 4335 E: mail@wildsheffield.com W: www.wildsheffield.com
Registered charity no. 700638 Company no. 2287928

Appendix 19
Full Cost Recovery Calculations,
Salaries and Management Costs

Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership salary and management costs revision from HLF Midterm
review (February) agreed in principal with HLF and finalised 1 st May.
(reviewed from 1 st February report)
Stage 1 application salaries and full cost recovery
The initial (revised v3) application spreadsheet which accompanied the HLF application phase one
identified the following: ?
Salaries
Post Net salary On-costs 20% FTE Annual cost
Programme Manager 26768 6692 1 £33,460
Volunteer coordinator 25073 6269 0.5 £15,671
Communications and 25073 6269 0.5 £15,671
Engagement Officer
Outdoor Learning 25073 6269 0.5 £15,671
Officer
Community Ecologist 25073 6269 0.5 £15,671
Community
25073 6269 0.5 £15,671
Archaeologist
Admin / Finance Officer 18930 3786 0.4 £7,572
Land and Ecology 13609 3402 1 £17,011
Trainees
Table 1. Salaries from submission spreadsheet.
Professional fees and full cost recovery
Overhead calculation (BLF template supporting document. Inflation already £212,818
included)
Professional fees, from ecologists to musicians etc. £222,000
Table 2. FCR, and Professional fees
Changes during development
The development phase of a Landscape Partnership is to both complete the Landscape Conservation
Action Plan and draw up detailed project narratives and budgets, explaining and describing how
projects will be delivered and resourced. As this partnership has progressed our requirements for
salaries and FCR have increased.
Using staff instead of professional fees
As the development phase has progressed the ‘shape’ of the budget has changed. Some things have
changed due to external factors;
For instance a sum of £20,000 for professional fees to support outreach work cannot follow
the original description as the organisation we were going to work with no longer exists, the
new project outline includes SRWT staff rather than professional fees.
Running projects as partners rather than contractors
Other considerations have arisen from the way budgets were aligned;
For instance the Steel Valley Project was identified as an organisation we would work with,
all the budgets assigned to that work were under access provision or habitat management
with no salary or related costs. The Steel Valley Project will be delivering the projects as

envisaged but as partners rather than contractors, therefore we would cover salaries and
full cost recovery rather than ‘contractors fees’ which would include those, plus surplus).
Most of the professional fees to engage Ecologists £61,000 are now included within the
costs of Project Ecologists for the local wildlife sites.
Running our own projects rather than issuing contracts
Other projects have capital budgets which could be put out to tender but fall within the work
streams that the partnership already undertakes;
For instance, Working with Water requires a project manager and a land management team
to deliver and monitor activity on the ground. As a result the Wildlife Trust had always
planned to deliver this ‘in-house’ and now choose to extend the hours of one of their Senior
Project Officers to cover the management and Wildscapes (CIC) will engage A small
part/time team of workers to deliver the work on the ground, this involves moving budgets
from ‘contractors’ to salaries and a management fee into FCR.
Work regarding habitat management and access improvements to Wildlife Trust nature
reserves was also always going to be delivered by the wildlife Trust, they will be spending
the funds as described in the original bid but some use of existing staff to ‘manage’ these
projects is required. In our second stage submission we will be showing this as full cost
recover.
Benefits and Risks
Benefits
These changes build capacity and sustainability within the organisations involved, partners
such as the Wildlife Trust and Steel Valley exist in order to deliver such projects. They have
committed considerable resources to supporting the development of this programme with
the expectation that, if successful, the ‘work’ and ‘activity’ generated through the funding
will allow them to deliver new projects themselves.
Partners delivering their own projects allow for partners to contribute both cash (such as
Steel Valley Project £16,000 toward woodland management) and volunteer time something
that they could not commit to if all projects went to ‘contract’. Overall project value, in the
form of cash directed at agreed areas of work remains substantively the same and value is
added by in delivery by directly supporting local organisations rather than reduced by paying
contracts who generate a profit. Managing projects this way is value for money and good for
the sector.
Partners delivering projects take a good degree of responsibility for the delivery of the
agreed outcomes and outputs. Issues around under-delivery and the need, on occasion, to
manage change where projects need to be adapted. This process is considerably harder on
the Programme Manager when they are ‘managing’ a number of tendered contracts.
Risks
The most significant risk lies with appointing staff who either fail to meet requirements or
leave before completing assignments. We are endeavouring to mitigate this risk by
extending contracts in order to retain established staff whose contracts are finishing, or
extending existing hours. In addition we are putting the line management and project

management responsibility for as many projects within the LP with partners rather than the
core team. This spreads the risk amongst partners rather than it sitting with the LP itself.
Delivery Phase re-draft salaries (draft)
Post Net Salary On costs Annual Length
cost
1 Programme Manager 32985 6402 1 £39,378 4 years
(SSLP)
2 Volunteer coordinator 24190 4388 1 £28578 4 years
(SLLP)
3 Communications and 14515 2633 0.6 £17147 4 years
Engagement Officer (SLLP)
4 Community Ecologist 25073 6269 0.4 £12,400 4 years
(Wildscapes)
5 Connecting Steps Project 25073 6269 0.4 £12,400 4 years
Officer (SRWT)
6 Connecting Steps Assistant 4625 1015 0.3 £5,640 4 years
(SRWT)
7 Landscape Connections 8925 1960 0.4 £10885 4 years
Officer (SRWT)
8 Landscape connections 8488 1864 0.4 £10352 4 years
Project Officer
9 Landscape Connections 861 189 1050 4 years
Casual staff (SRWT)
10 Community Archaeologist 25073 6269 0.5 £15,671 4 years
PO (SCC)
11 Admin / Finance Officer 18930 3786 0.4 £7,572 4 years
(SRWT)
12 Land and Ecology Trainees 13609 3402 1 £17,011 4 years
(SLLP)
13 Ecologists for LWS
£8,350 3 years
Casuals (SCC)
14 Working with Water 25073 6269 0.2 £7,350 4 years
Manager (SRWT)
15 Working with Water Land 16181 3236 0.3 £5,825 3.5
Team Leader (Wildscapes)
16 Working with Water Land
Management Assistant
(Wildscapes)
years
15268 3054 0.3 £5,500 3.5
years
17 Environmental Project 22000 4400 0.6 £15,840 4 years
Officer (SVP)
Table 3. New posts, extension of hours or renewal of contracts
Delivery Phase Salaries
Posts 1, 2, 3 & 12
These are the ‘core’ posts to run SLLP and deliver training, connect projects, support other
groups etc. The workload of the practical and volunteer officer is such that it’s been
increased to full time rather than 0.5 FTE. All other posts will be managed by partners.

Job descriptions and explanation narratives are attached for all salaries above.
Development stage full cost recovery
1. Overhead calculation (BLF template supporting document. Inflation
already included)
2. SRWT Nature Reserves: Salary for Land Mgt Officer. 1 day per week (0.2
FTE) £ inc NI and Pension over 4 years inc inflation
3. SRWT Nature Reserves: The project staff member (Pete) and the budgets
will be overseen by Rob Miller (Living Landscapes Manager), this will
required approximately 2 days per month (0.1FTE) which will be
evidenced with an hourly record and signed statement and will be
included as additional FCR.
4. SVP Woodland Heart: Finance support, Project Management, calculation
of rent, rates etc.
5. Supporting Species: Wildscapes Senior Ecologist to manage Community
Ecologist. DM rate - 1 day per month = £1836.92 per year
6. SRWT Working with Water: The project staff member (Nabil) and the
budgets will be overseen by Roy Mosley (Head of Conservation and Land
Management), this will required approximately 1 day per month which
will be evidenced with an hourly record and signed statement and will
included as additional FCR.
7. Connecting Steps: Senior Project Officer to oversee the project and
develop it further. Equivalent to 0.025 FTE
£212,818
£21,576
£13,926
£8,011
£7,500
£8,280
£3,290
8. SVP Access Provision: Finance support, Project Management, calculation £8,011
of rent, rates etc.
9. SRWT Landscape Connections in-kind contribution £2,251
10. SRWT Connecting Steps in-kind contribution £2,251
Table 4. Full cost recovery figures
Summary
1 FCR relates to the overall management and support of the project by the Lead Partners,
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust, this remains as described within the initial stage 1
bid and accompanying FCR calculation sheet.
2 through 7 are costs incurred by existing staff of a volunteer (charity or CIC) organisation in
order to run / deliver projects.
9 and 10 are FCR eligible support costs which will not be claimed but will be recorded as inkind
contributions on behalf of the lead partner.

Partners narratives as to why they wish to engage staff or claim FCR in the above manner.
In addition to supplying Job descriptions and specifications for all posts, new and existing, partners
were asked to explain why they wanted to employ staff or claim recovery and under what
circumstances. This explanation is as follows:
Core Project (created by Keith Tomkins SLLP Project Manager)
Project Manager will be retained from original contract.
Communications and Engagement Officer, to be confirmed but we are currently looking to
retain from original contract if possible.
Practical and Volunteer Officer will be a newly appointed post.
Trainees will be appointed each year.
Finance and Administration support: Jo Walker is the current (Development Phase) Finance
and Admin Officer, she is engaged one day per week (0.2 FTE) supporting the development
team, putting together the budgets and designing the reporting systems for delivery. The
transfer of Jo to the SLLP team was agreed by HLF for stage 1 and that the ‘workload’ was
backfilled at 0.2FTE by engaging additional new HR support. The delivery phase will require
additional input at two days per week (0.4 FTE) on this project. If it is necessary we may look
to have 0.2 FTE (1 day) continued from current agreement and the other 0.2 FTE (1 day)
recorded under FCR. See note from Department Head (Roy Mosley) “It is essential we have
some dedicated admin and finance support time (0.4 FTE) for the life-time of the SLLP in
order to successfully underpin delivery of a scheme of this size and scale. We have the ideal
candidate to fulfil this role in house, with the advantage of her being involved throughout the
development phase and more generally very experienced in working on HLF projects. The 0.4
backfill (0.2 already backfilled) will be covered by a range of existing staff - in essence we're
saying the Trust only needs Jo for 0.6 FTE allowing the balance of time to be spent on the LP.”
Enhancing our Local wildlife Sites (Created by Richard Harris, SCC Ecologist)
There is facility to utilise existing Sheffield City Council Casual Ecology Workers, working
irregular hours as and when required, to work additional hours to deliver surveys, reports
and complete management briefs. Staff will be selected for their particular skill set from a
pool of 17 CEWs. All staff will be competent across a range of ecological survey techniques
and for a range of species groups and habitats.
Surveys, maps and reports will be produced by Casual ecology workers working irregular
hours as and when required, with more detailed surveys targeting specialist wildlife groups
e.g. surveys for bats or breeding birds by casual ecology staff, or specialists from the private,
charity or academic sectors where we do not have the skills ‘in-house’.
Competent and appropriately qualified staff and contractors will be utilised. Evidence
reported of qualifications and evidence of suitability of an appropriate level of experience in
ecological survey.
Contractors, specialists (from the private or charity sector), will be employed to deliver a
range of habitat management and creation projects.
Note from Keith Tomkins
I have discussed this with SCC to confirm that this is additional hours for existing casual
ecologists and will not be part of the existing work hours.

Enhancing SRWT Nature Reserves (Created by Roy Mosley SRWT)
Salary support for existing Land Mgt Officer. 1 day per week (0.2 FTE) inc NI and Pension
over 4 years including inflation to deliver projects with volunteers and contractors on the
ground. The project staff member and the budgets will be overseen by Rob Miller (Living
Landscapes Manager), this will require approximately 2 days per month (0.1FTE) to manage
this project which will be evidenced with an hourly record and signed statement and will be
included as additional FCR.
Woodland Heart, Access and Gateways (Created by Tom Newman SVP)
The Steel Valley Project runs all of its practical projects with the support of volunteers from a
range of backgrounds. This will be key during the delivery of SLLP projects and the
Environmental Project Officer will facilitate this, ensuring work is carried out in line with
industry standards and health and safety requirements. The Environmental Project Officer
will work directly with volunteers, who will receive supervision, training and support in a
range of countryside skills during the SLLP projects Steel Valley Project is delivering, leading
to a range of positive outcomes including improved understanding of the countryside and
the issues effecting it and gaining of skills and training helping with future employment
prospects.
The commencement of the SLLP work programmes at the end of 2018 will align with the end
of contract with our existing project officer. We would want to extend this contract rather
than go to open recruitment, JDs are attached.
Working with Water Manager (Created by Roy Mosley SRWT)
An existing part-time (0.8 FTE) member of SRWT staff will be employed as a Natural Flood
Management Officer (NFM) on an additional 0.2 FTE to manage this project. This equates to
£28,130 over four years. This member of staff is ideally suited to this role as involved during
the development phase, so knows the individual farmers and sites exceptionally well. He is
also an experienced ecologist, very familiar with the habitats and species of the area and the
particular issues and opportunities that exist. Crucially he has the capacity, interest and
enthusiasm to see this project through delivery.
This member of staff and the project budgets will be overseen by SRWT’s Head of
Conservation and Land Management at 1 day/mth (0.05 FTE). This equates to £8,280 over
the four years and will be included under FCR. This role is crucial to ensure good line
management of the post and good budgetary control to ensure the CEO has confidence
things will run smoothly.
Working with Water Field Team (Created by Jon Collett Wildscapes)
Through open recruitment engage a part time field team: The SLLP projects require a
delivery team for the land management projects. We will be looking to engage two
additional part time posts. Having a confirmed resource for part time staff will allow us to
commit to their personal development. This will enable us to develop skills, knowledge and
experience within the team.
These will be a newly created roles of two days a week to support the SLLP. As these roles
would be managed by the existing consultancy (CIC) manager it is intended that these posts
will be advertised as a minimum three days a week roles with the additional days paid for
by, and used to expand our existing land management capacity. Following the completion of
the landscape partnership project it is hoped that the posts will have proved sufficiently

successful within the consultancy to justify the two days being absorbed by the consultancy.
As SRWT will already be claiming FCR against this project the CIC will not do so.
Supporting Species Community Ecologist (created by Jon Goodrick Wildscapes)
Through open recruitment we will engage a part time Community Ecologist. Habitat and
species conservation and community engagement remain the core activities of the SLLP. The
majority of proposed projects require ecological input at a regulatory level (ensuring
compliance/avoiding unnecessary impacts) and/or design and delivery level (ensuring
conservation objectives are met) with community engagement (ensuring the importance of
projects is understood, increasing the chance of long-term success). The ecologists engaged
within the project development phase have proven the value of a dedicated internal team
providing advice and skills across projects, this will continue and help add cohesion to
landscape partnership. The advantage of a core post is the avoidance of project outcome
conflicts and the integration of otherwise separate delivery goals. This post will be line
managed by the consultancy (CIC) manager and one-day per month FCR is recorded against
that.
Hidden History (Created by Dave Aspinall SCC)
The cultural heritage of the Sheffield Lakelands is rich and diverse. Working at a landscape
scale across natural, cultural (built and Archaeological) and community themes on various
projects the partnership will engage a number of people and be able to call upon others for
support. Within the Partnership there are no employees working at a project level charged
directly with archaeology and cultural heritage. A new post is vital to retain balance and
deliver our cultural heritage project.
Sheffield City Council has an existing project officer whose contract is coming to an end, the
existing role is not being retained (signed letter confirming this to follow). This officer has
successfully delivered community cultural heritage / archaeology projects (e.g. Roots of Iron
Project https://rootsofiron.wordpress.com/ ) . The request here is that HLF allow SCC to
extend the existing contract and move the officer to delivery of the cultural heritage project
‘Hidden history’.
Connecting Steps (Created by Keith Tomkins SLLP)
Connecting steps will create two new posts. We have someone whose current post is ending
and they will be made redundant. However, they have the experience and skillset that
matches the requirements of this project and we believe it will benefit HLF and the SLLP to
have someone of this level of expertise transferred to this role.
The Project Assistant post will be a new post created by open recruitment.
Both staff will be Line Managed by the SRWT Outdoor Learning team and that management
has been identified as an in-kind contribution.
Landscape Connections (Created by Keith Tomkins SLLP)
Open recruitment for a new Officer for the Landscape connections project we wish to
employ a part time project officer 0.4 FTE. They will have a small amount of support from
education casual staff, up to 12 sessions per year.
This staff member will have a small (salary) budget to engage zero hour casual staff when
needed. In addition a Senior Project Officer (Chris Smith) will be allocated 0.025 FTE to
oversee and develop this project.

The SLLP Overheads Venn diagram (may 2018)
Figures in Blue are project budget minus the salary (green) or FCR (Red) figures set against them.
V1. Core Project Posts Not including Project Manager or Finance and Admin Support
Volunteer
Coordinator
Restoring the lattice
£107,000
£175,000
Supporting
Local groups
£51,400
Community
grant Scheme
£200,000
Art in the
landscape
£45,000
Communications
and Engagement
£68,600
Telling Local
stories
Practical projects
and training
£76,000
Trainneships
£73,000
Digital Landscape +
Website and
leaflets etc.
Volunteer Coordinator
and Communications
Officer Salaries are
identified in core costs
so not subtracted from
related projects.
£28,000
£53,000
V2. Connecting Steps Project
CS Project
Officer
£42,000
Management
contribution
£5,000
Connecting Steps £41,000
CS Project
Assistant
£22,000

V3 Landscape Connections Project
LC Project
Officer
Management
contribution
£5,000
FCR
£43,540
£3,300
Landscapes
Connections £26,300
LC Casual
support
£8,750
V4 Enhancing Local wildlife Sites
Enhancing local Wildlife Sites
£31,000
Casual
Ecologists
£25,000

V5 Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust Land Management
Enhancing Nature
Reserves
£114,000
Access
improvements
£40,000
Woodland Heart
work on SRWT
Nature Reserves
£30,000
Management FCR
£35,500
Management
FCR
£35,500 FCR subtracted from NR
budget but includes support for
access and woodland heart projects
on nature reserves
£8,300
Working with Water £271,000
Manager
£30,000
V6 Hidden History
Hidden History
£93,000
Project Officer
£64,000

V7 Woodland Heart and Access Steel Valley Project
Woodland Heart 7a
£45,500
Management
FCR
Access
£20,000
£8,000
Environment
Officer
£32,000
FCR relates to
support to Steel
Valley not Lead
Partner
V8 Community Ecologist
Woodland Heart 7
£476,000
Supporting Local
Groups £60,000
Midhope Nature
Reserve
£210,000
Management
FCR
£7,350
Community
Ecologist
£35,000
Restoring the
Lattice £174,000
Heritage Highways
£53,000
Supporting Species
£45,000

Overhead Workings for BLF
Approach used to apportion overheads:
For the Development Phase, overheads have been apprortioned based on direct project expenditure. This is th
circumstance because the Development Phase has very few project staff directly employed but is a relatively lar
For the Delivery Phase, the overheads have been apportioned based on staff numbers. This is because estima
would be very diffiult to do with any accuracy. And as the Delivery Phase has amore typical staff compliment, it
overheads.
Please use tabs below to view each FCR spreadsheet for each year. Delivery Phase workings - scroll right
Development Phase 16/17 17/18 2% inflation
Total SRWT exp in 16/17@ June 2016 1,379,235 1,406,820
SRWT project exp 979,000 998,580 Wildscapes, Conservation and Land Managem
SRWT overhead exp 400,235 408,240 CEO, Governance, Support Services, Marketing
16/17 Budget (June 2016)
Current Change Predicted Cost
Rent & rates - operational base 11,550 1.03 11,897
Rates - Victoria Hall 2,510 1.00 2,510
Building Maintenance 4,000 1.03 4,120
Heat & light - Victoria Hall 8,000 1.03 8,240
Cleaning 1,350 1.03 1,391
Petrol/diesel 3,800 1.03 3,914
Vehicle repair & maintenance 2,600 1.03 2,678
Audit Fees 5,500 1.03 5,665
Levy to RSWT 11,650 1.00 11,650
Professional Fees 2,000 1.00 2,000
Insurance 15,000 1.03 15,450
Bank charges 144 1.03 148
Stationery 2,600 1.03 2,678
Office equipment 1,000 1.03 1,030
Postage 2,400 1.03 2,472
Health & Safety equipment 2,400 1.03 2,472
Photocopier 1,800 1.03 1,854
Telephone & fax - Victoria Hall 3,200 1.03 3,296
Sundry items (incl. tea & coffee) 800 1.03 824
Final Salary Pension Back Pay 21,655 1.00 21,655
Staff Conference & AGM 1,100 1.03 1,133
Computer maintenance & service fees 1,714 1.03 1,765
Software lease & broadband 1,920 1.03 1,978
IT equipment 1,000 1.03 1,030
Exec function
54,901 1.08 59,293
Conservation and Land Management Function38,301 1.05 40,216
Support Service (HR, IT, Payroll, Admin etc) 87,996 1.03 90,636
Communications and Marketing
23,018 1.03 23,709
Fundraising 25,000 1.03 25,750
338,909 351,453

ct expenditure. This is the approach the Trust currently uses and seems most appropriate in this
loyed but is a relatively large project to manage give the scale of consultants involved etc.
s. This is because estimating the scale of expenditure for the Trust over the future 5 years to 2024
ypical staff compliment, it seemed more appropriate to use the number of staff as a percentage to apportion
workings - scroll right
ervation and Land Management, Living Landscapes, Community Engagement
, Support Services, Marketing, Comms, Fundraising
17/18 Budget (June 2016)
Current Inflation Change Predicted Cost
Rent & rates - Stokes 11,550 11,781 1.14 13,430
Rates - Victoria Hall 2,510 2,560 1.00 2,560
Building Maintenance 4,000 4,080 1.14 4,651
Heat & light - Victoria Hall 8,000 8,160 1.14 9,302
Cleaning 1,350 1,377 1.14 1,570
Petrol/diesel 3,800 3,876 1.14 4,419
Vehicle repair & maintenance 2,600 2,652 1.14 3,023
Audit Fees 5,500 5,610 1.14 6,395
Levy to RSWT 11,650 11,883 1.00 11,883
Professional Fees 2,000 2,040 1.00 2,040
Insurance 15,000 15,300 1.14 17,442
Bank charges 144 147 1.14 167
Stationery 2,600 2,652 1.14 3,023
Office equipment 1,000 1,020 1.14 1,163
Postage 2,400 2,448 1.14 2,791
Health & Safety equipment 2,400 2,448 1.14 2,791
Photocopier 1,800 1,836 1.14 2,093
Telephone & fax - Victoria Hall 3,200 3,264 1.14 3,721
Sundry items (incl. tea & coffee) 800 816 1.14 930
Final Salary Pension Back Pay 21,655 22,088 1.00 22,088
Staff Conference & AGM 1,100 1,122 1.14 1,279
Computer maintenance & service 1,714 fees 1,748 1.14 1,993
Software lease & broadband 1,920 1,958 1.14 2,233
IT equipment 1,000 1,020 1.14 1,163
Exec function
54,901 55,999 1.14 63,839
Conservation and Land Management 38,301 Function 39,067 1.14 44,536
Support Service (HR, IT, Payroll, 87,996 Admin etc) 89,756 1.14 102,322
Communications and Marketing 23,018 23,478 1.14 26,765
Fundraising 25,000 25,500 1.14 29,070
338,909 388,683
49,774

Delivery Phase
2% inflation
18/19 Budget (June 2016)
Current Inflation Change Predicted Cost
Rent & rates - Stokes 11,550 12,017 1.17 14,059
Rates - Victoria Hall 2,510 2,611 1.00 2,611
Building Maintenance 4,000 4,162 1.17 4,869
Heat & light - Victoria Hall 8,000 8,323 1.17 9,738
Cleaning 1,350 1,405 1.17 1,643
Petrol/diesel 3,800 3,954 1.17 4,626
Vehicle repair & maintenance 2,600 2,705 1.17 3,165
Audit Fees 5,500 5,722 1.17 6,695
Levy to RSWT 11,650 12,121 1.00 12,121
Professional Fees 2,000 2,081 1.00 2,081
Insurance 15,000 15,606 1.17 18,259
Bank charges 144 150 1.17 175
Stationery 2,600 2,705 1.17 3,165
Office equipment 1,000 1,040 1.17 1,217
Postage 2,400 2,497 1.17 2,921
Health & Safety equipment 2,400 2,497 1.17 2,921
Photocopier 1,800 1,873 1.17 2,191
Telephone & fax - Victoria Hall 3,200 3,329 1.17 3,895
Sundry items (incl. tea & coffee) 800 832 1.17 974
Final Salary Pension Back Pay 21,655 22,530 1.00 22,530
Staff Conference & AGM 1,100 1,144 1.17 1,339
Computer maintenance & service fees 1,714 1,783 1.17 2,086
Software lease & broadband 1,920 1,998 1.17 2,337
IT equipment 1,000 1,040 1.17 1,217
Exec function
54,901 57,119 1.17 66,829
Conservation and Land Management Function 38,301 39,848 1.20 47,818
Support Service (HR, IT, Payroll, Admin 87,996 etc) 91,551 1.17 107,115
Communications and Marketing 23,018 23,948 1.17 28,019
Fundraising 25,000 26,010 1.17 30,432
407,050
Overhead Summary for Delivery - drawn from FCR spreadsheet tabs
Year 1819 £ 33,681
1920 £ 56,807
2021 £ 52,045
2122 £ 53,125
2223 £ 16,160

Total £ 211,818

19/20 Budget (June 2016)
Current Inflation Change Predicted Cost
Rent & rates - Stokes 11,550 12,257 1.17 14,341
Rates - Victoria Hall 2,510 2,664 1.00 2,664
Building Maintenance 4,000 4,245 1.17 4,966
Heat & light - Victoria Hall 8,000 8,490 1.17 9,933
Cleaning 1,350 1,433 1.17 1,676
Petrol/diesel 3,800 4,033 1.17 4,718
Vehicle repair & maintenance 2,600 2,759 1.17 3,228
Audit Fees 5,500 5,837 1.17 6,829
Levy to RSWT 11,650 12,363 1.00 12,363
Professional Fees 2,000 2,122 1.00 2,122
Insurance 15,000 15,918 1.17 18,624
Bank charges 144 153 1.17 179
Stationery 2,600 2,759 1.17 3,228
Office equipment 1,000 1,061 1.17 1,242
Postage 2,400 2,547 1.17 2,980
Health & Safety equipment 2,400 2,547 1.17 2,980
Photocopier 1,800 1,910 1.17 2,235
Telephone & fax - Victoria Hall 3,200 3,396 1.17 3,973
Sundry items (incl. tea & coffee) 800 849 1.17 993
Final Salary Pension Back Pay 21,655 22,980 1.00 22,980
Staff Conference & AGM 1,100 1,167 1.17 1,366
Computer maintenance & service fees 1,714 1,819 1.17 2,128
Software lease & broadband 1,920 2,038 1.17 2,384
IT equipment 1,000 1,061 1.17 1,242
Exec function
54,901 58,261 1.17 68,166
Conservation and Land Management 38,301 Function 40,645 1.20 48,774
Support Service (HR, IT, Payroll, Admin 87,996 etc) 93,382 1.17 109,257
Communications and Marketing 23,018 24,427 1.17 28,579
Fundraising 25,000 26,530 1.17 31,040
415,191

20/21 Budget (June 2016)
Current Inflation Change Predicted Cost
Rent & rates - Stokes 11,550 12,502 1.17 14,627
Rates - Victoria Hall 2,510 2,717 1.00 2,717
Building Maintenance 4,000 4,330 1.17 5,066
Heat & light - Victoria Hall 8,000 8,659 1.17 10,132
Cleaning 1,350 1,461 1.17 1,710
Petrol/diesel 3,800 4,113 1.17 4,812
Vehicle repair & maintenance 2,600 2,814 1.17 3,293
Audit Fees 5,500 5,953 1.17 6,965
Levy to RSWT 11,650 12,610 1.00 12,610
Professional Fees 2,000 2,165 1.00 2,165
Insurance 15,000 16,236 1.17 18,997
Bank charges 144 156 1.17 182
Stationery 2,600 2,814 1.17 3,293
Office equipment 1,000 1,082 1.17 1,266
Postage 2,400 2,598 1.17 3,039
Health & Safety equipment 2,400 2,598 1.17 3,039
Photocopier 1,800 1,948 1.17 2,280
Telephone & fax - Victoria Hall 3,200 3,464 1.17 4,053
Sundry items (incl. tea & coffee) 800 866 1.17 1,013
Final Salary Pension Back Pay 21,655 23,440 1.00 23,440
Staff Conference & AGM 1,100 1,191 1.17 1,393
Computer maintenance & service 1,714 fees 1,855 1.17 2,171
Software lease & broadband 1,920 2,078 1.17 2,432
IT equipment 1,000 1,082 1.17 1,266
Exec function
54,901 59,427 1.15 68,341
Conservation and Land Management 38,301 Function 41,458 1.20 49,750
Support Service (HR, IT, Payroll, 87,996 Admin etc) 95,250 1.17 111,442
Communications and Marketing 23,018 24,915 1.17 29,151
Fundraising 25,000 27,061 1.17 31,661
422,306

21/22 Budget (June 2016)
Current Inflation Change Predicted Cost
Rent & rates - Stokes 11,550 12,752 1.17 14,920 Rent & rates - Stokes
Rates - Victoria Hall 2,510 2,771 1.00 2,771 Rates - Victoria Hall
Building Maintenance 4,000 4,416 1.17 5,167 Building Maintenance
Heat & light - Victoria Hall 8,000 8,833 1.17 10,334 Heat & light - Victoria
Cleaning 1,350 1,491 1.17 1,744 Cleaning
Petrol/diesel 3,800 4,196 1.17 4,909 Petrol/diesel
Vehicle repair & maintenance 2,600 2,871 1.17 3,359 Vehicle repair & maint
Audit Fees 5,500 6,072 1.17 7,105 Audit Fees
Levy to RSWT 11,650 12,863 1.00 12,863 Levy to RSWT
Professional Fees 2,000 2,208 1.00 2,208 Professional Fees
Insurance 15,000 16,561 1.17 19,377 Insurance
Bank charges 144 159 1.17 186 Bank charges
Stationery 2,600 2,871 1.17 3,359 Stationery
Office equipment 1,000 1,104 1.17 1,292 Office equipment
Postage 2,400 2,650 1.17 3,100 Postage
Health & Safety equipment 2,400 2,650 1.17 3,100 Health & Safety equip
Photocopier 1,800 1,987 1.17 2,325 Photocopier
Telephone & fax - Victoria Hall 3,200 3,533 1.17 4,134 Telephone & fax - Vict
Sundry items (incl. tea & coffee) 800 883 1.17 1,033 Sundry items (incl. tea
Final Salary Pension Back Pay 21,655 23,909 1.00 23,909 Final Salary Pension B
Staff Conference & AGM 1,100 1,214 1.17 1,421 Staff Conference & AG
Computer maintenance & service 1,714 fees 1,892 1.17 2,214 Computer maintenanc
Software lease & broadband 1,920 2,120 1.17 2,480 Software lease & broa
IT equipment 1,000 1,104 1.17 1,292 IT equipment
Exec function
54,901 60,615 1.17 70,920
Exec function
Conservation and Land Management 38,301 Function 42,287 1.20 50,745 Conservation and Lan
Support Service (HR, IT, Payroll, 87,996 Admin etc) 97,155 1.17 113,671
Support Service (HR,
Communications and Marketing 23,018 25,414 1.17 29,734
Communications and
Fundraising 25,000 27,602 1.17 32,294 Fundraising
431,965

22/23 Budget (June 2016)
Current Inflation Change Predicted Cost
Rent & rates - Stokes 11,550 13,007 1.17 15,218
Rates - Victoria Hall 2,510 2,827 1.00 2,827
Building Maintenance 4,000 4,505 1.17 5,270
Heat & light - Victoria Hall 8,000 9,009 1.17 10,541
Cleaning 1,350 1,520 1.17 1,779
Petrol/diesel 3,800 4,279 1.17 5,007
Vehicle repair & maintenance 2,600 2,928 1.17 3,426
Audit Fees 5,500 6,194 1.17 7,247
Levy to RSWT 11,650 13,120 1.00 13,120
Professional Fees 2,000 2,252 1.00 2,252
Insurance 15,000 16,892 1.17 19,764
Bank charges 144 162 1.17 190
Stationery 2,600 2,928 1.17 3,426
Office equipment 1,000 1,126 1.17 1,318
2,400 2,703 1.17 3,162
Health & Safety equipment 2,400 2,703 1.17 3,162
Photocopier 1,800 2,027 1.17 2,372
Telephone & fax - Victoria Hall 3,200 3,604 1.17 4,216
Sundry items (incl. tea & coffee) 800 901 1.17 1,054
Final Salary Pension Back Pay 21,655 24,387 1.00 24,387
Staff Conference & AGM 1,100 1,239 1.17 1,449
Computer maintenance & service 1,714 fees 1,930 1.17 2,258
Software lease & broadband 1,920 2,162 1.17 2,530
IT equipment 1,000 1,126 1.17 1,318
Exec function
54,901 61,827 1.17 72,338
Conservation and Land Management 38,301 Function 43,133 1.20 51,760
Support Service (HR, IT, Payroll, 87,996 Admin etc) 99,098 1.17 115,944
Communications and Marketing 23,018 25,922 1.17 30,329
Fundraising 25,000 28,154 1.17 32,940
440,604

Appendix 20
Notes on Third Party Agreements

Demonstration
Sheffield Lakeland Delivery Group Meeting
Notes 3rd party agreements
If you are undertaking a demonstration project, something that is more about
testing a product or showing others what can be done then there is no need to have
a 3 rd party agreement in place. You should however outline how long the
demonstration is liable to remain active. An example of this will be Hag Brook
“Catchment Laboratory” where the physical / capital projects and data gathering
facility will not need to be retained or maintained post the HLF funded period.
Training Project
If you are using a physical item to deliver training and the actual item itself is not an
output or outcome, then there is no need for a 3 rd party agreement. An example of
this might be training on a dry stone wall where you could either repair bits of wall
while training or dismantle and rebuild the same bit each time. As far as I’m aware
three are no training projects of this type in the SLLP project.
Revenue
An event, activity or product which is transitory needs no 3 rd party agreement. So
everything from leading a guided walk to an ice sculpture would fit under revenue,
as does training above.
Low-medium sized capital projects on your sites
Each delivery partner will sign the Delivery Agreement, this includes the
confirmation to meet HLF guidelines, one of which is a requirement to retain and
within reason maintain capital items for a minimum of ten years. As you have signed
the Delivery Agreement you do not need to create a separate 3 rd party agreement.
Low-medium sized capital projects on partner sites (£500 & £10,000)
While you and the partner whose site you are working on have signed the Delivery
Agreement, the site owner is not bound by it in relation to your project, in fact there
is no evidence that they have agreed to the project, let alone undertaken to retain
the feature. However, there is a degree of ‘partnership’ expectancy involved so the
requirement for a 3 rd party agreement can be in the form of confirmation from you
that you have discussed this with the site owner and they have agreed to retain and
as far as is reasonable, maintain the facility you have invested in. An example of this
might be resources spent on upgrading a permissive route, we would expect the site
owner to retain the route for 10 years.
Large capital projects on your sites (over £10,000)
There is no absolute requirement for a separate agreement around retention and
maintenance of large projects outside the Delivery Agreement and it’s confirmation
of the requirement to meet HLF rules. However, as Programme Manager and in

order to protect the partnership and Lead Partner in particular I may recommend a
legal retention agreement be entered into before the Steering Group officially
endorse the project. I don’t think we have a project developing that requires this,
but as an example from my previous project; we did not pursue the renovation of an
old barn into an office and education centre partially because the partner was
unable to confirm a 25 year retention agreement.
Large capital projects on partner sites (over £10,000)
The difference between small, medium and larger projects (in excess of £10,000) on
partners’ sites is that I would look to confirm (record) directly from the site owner
partner that they have agreed to the project understand the retention
requirements. As yet I have no projects in development that fit this criteria but it is
possible that an access project under ‘gateways project’ might fit this scenario.
Small capital projects on 3 rd party sites (under £500)
Confirmation from the delivery partner that the site owner has no plans to sell the
site or change the site in such a way as to remove the heritage benefit of the capital
item will suffice. This might be something such as way-marker posts.
Medium capital projects on 3 rd party sites (£500 - £5,000)
If you are carrying out projects on 3 rd party sites in excess of £500 cash investment
by Heritage Lottery Fund we will require a signed letter from the site owner. The
letter needs to include the following:
1. Very short summary of work being done.
2. Confirmation of understanding that the HLF investment puts a requirement
on them to retain and as far as reasonable maintain that investment for a
period of ten years.
3. Understanding that if the sell or dispose of the capital item or site there may
be a requirement to repay the HLF.
Examples of this will include: Dry stone wall repairs for non-partners or PRoW
improvements where the idea was to make a footpath suitable for mountain bikes
on a permissive basis. 3 rd party agreements will be required for habitat restoration
projects where failure to manage that habitat would result in rapid decline and the
habitat itself is part of the project outputs (for example 25 hectares of heathland will
be restored), but not interventions with limited life expectation, such as leaky dams,
nor habitat projects which are not outputs (for example community engagement
with no hectarage target).
Large capital projects on 3 rd party sites (£5,000 and above)
At present I do not think we have large capital projects above £5,000 for 3 rd party,
non-partner, sites. If one does arise my recommendation will be to include a budget
line for legal support to create a specific 3 rd party agreement, £1,000 should cover all
but the most complex situations.

Appendix 21
Working with Water
Research Plan

Report on Natural Flood Management within the
Sheffield Lakelands Landscape Partnership:
Enhanced Monitoring for Research and Impact
Evaluation
Dr Jonathan Bridge
Department of the Natural and Built Environment
December 2017
Version:
Complete draft for pre-finalisation review. 21/12/2017. J.W. Bridge
Checked:
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 1

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 4
Review of proposed NFM interventions ...................................................................... 5
Whitwell Moor (Site 1) ............................................................................................. 6
Church Farm - Sick Brook (Site 2) .......................................................................... 8
Cross Farm, Low Bradfield (Site 5) ....................................................................... 12
Hoyles Farm (Site 6) ............................................................................................. 13
Langsett - Kiln Brook (Site 9) ................................................................................ 16
Rocher End (Site 13) ............................................................................................ 19
Proposed monitoring programme ............................................................................. 22
Summary of monitoring requirements and field equipment ................................... 22
Monitoring schedule and human resources .......................................................... 26
Indicative costs vs benefits of monitoring ................................................................. 28
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 30
Cited references ................................................................................................... 30
Useful weblinks ..................................................................................................... 30
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 2

Figures
Figure 1. a) EA opportunities map and b) SCIMAP combined flow connectivity
and erosion risk for Whitwell Moor. ............................................................................ 8
Figure 2. EA Opportunities Map for Sick Brook and Rocher End. .............................. 9
Figure 3. SCIMAP modelling of combined flow connectivity and erosion risk for
area around Agden Reservoir. ................................................................................. 10
Figure 4. Possible monitoring locations at Sick Brook. ............................................. 11
Figure 5. EA Opportunities Map for Cross Farm, Low Bradfield. .............................. 12
Figure 6. SCIMAP flow connectivity and erosion risk for Hoyles Farm (south). ........ 13
Figure 7. EA Opportunities Map for Hoyles (South). ................................................ 14
Figure 8. Proposed monitoring scheme for Hoyles (south). Intervention sites are
shown by solid-outline regions, control by dashed-line region. ................................ 16
Figure 9. Langsett - Kiln Brook EA Opportunities Map. ............................................ 17
Figure 10. Proposed monitoring schedule for Langsett - Kiln Bank Brook ............... 19
Figure 11. Rocher End monitoring plan. ................................................................... 21
Tables
Table 1. Proposed NFM interventions and comments on potential ............................ 5
Table 2. Schedule of monitoring activities and equipment ....................................... 22
Table 3. Proposed schedule of NFM monitoring and intervention ............................ 26
Table 4. Outline costings for proposed NFM monitoring. ......................................... 28
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 3

Executive Summary
This report outlines the results of several walkover and desk studies of sites within the
Sheffield Lakelands Landscape Partnership (SLLP) which have been identified as
potential sites for 'conservation-led' natural flood management (NFM) works.
Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) was asked to review the sites in terms of potential
for NFM impact and to assess the potential for the proposed interventions to act as
'demonstrators', providing transferable evidence on the NFM benefits of the
interventions alongside ecological and other conservation and landscape benefits.
SHU was further asked to develop a programme for monitoring the hydrological
impacts of the interventions, in order to assess their impacts on water flow within the
catchments.
Of 13 proposed intervention sites, 6 are identified as having potential as conservationled
NFM demonstrators. Of these, two (Whitwell Moor, Stocksbridge and Cross Farm,
Low Bradfield) are identified as having potential direct benefit in reducing flood risk to
properties and infrastructure and should be subject to further site characterisation.
Four sites - Hoyles Farm, Church Farm (Sick Brook), Rocher End and Langsett - Kiln
Bank Brook - are reviewed in detail and a monitoring plan proposed for each. The key
components of each monitoring plan include establishing a robust baseline for the
hydrological response of the stream to rainfall events over at least one year prior to
installation of the proposed works. These stations will comprise research-standard
pressure gauges securely installed in the stream yielding continuous measurements
on 15-minute intervals. In combination with detailed contextual data and rainfall-runoff
modelling, this will allow any effects on the catchment behaviour post-implementation
to be discerned. Additional to this, to monitor the reach-scale impacts of interventions
immediately downstream and upstream, a network of simpler stream level monitoring
stations is recommended and specified. These stations will comprise 'trailcams' (as
used for remote wildlife monitoring) which can be used to monitor stream level,
environmental conditions and changes in the stream channel and surroundings that
may affect hydrological performance.
Also included within the proposal is a component of 'citizen science', in which
volunteers are asked to participate in rainfall, soil moisture, runoff and vegetation cover
monitoring using simple techniques to cover the whole SLLP region. While coordinated
by SHU to integrate data with the hydrological modelling, this will require use of the
specialist experience of SRWT in recruiting and managing volunteers.
Based on these specifications, a costed proposal for monitoring is drawn up. The
costings include purchase of essential stream monitoring equipment, consumables
and specialist coordination by Sheffield Hallam University. The cost to SLLP of
£25,000 will be matched by at least £48,000 of in-kind contribution over the lifetime of
the HLF funding, through the allocation of student research projects, specialist staff
time and academic resources (IT, databases, analytical software, laboratory and
technical support). A detailed timetable for the project is also proposed.
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 4

Review of proposed NFM interventions
Over the second half of 2017, several site visits and walkover surveys were conducted
at locations within the SLLP area with representatives from the Wildlife Trust,
Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water.
Additionally, preliminary desk studies were performed including:
reference to the Environment Agency Opportunities Maps released in Autumn
2017 as part of the Working with Natural Processes project, hosted online by the
JBA Trust (http://naturalprocesses.jbahosting.com);
modelling of runoff connectivity and erosion risk for the whole SLLP area using
SCIMAP (two-dimensional GIS hydrological model) (http://www.scimap.org.uk)
site characterisation using Google Earth and Planet Labs satellite imagery.
Scientific literature, case studies, and technical guidance documents were reviewed
in order to identify good practice, design considerations and site-specific issues in
respect of possible and proposed interventions.
Table 1. Proposed NFM interventions and comments on potential
Site
no.
1
2
5
6
9
Site
(Grid ref)
Whitwell
Moor
(SK 254 975)
Church Farm
(Sick Brook)
(SK 257 935)
Cross Farm,
Low Bradfield
(SK 265 923)
Hoyles Farm
(South)
(SK 226 895)
Langsett -
Kiln Brook...
(SE 197 009)
Proposed
intervention
(summary)
Leaky dams,
vegetation, ponds
Bog restoration, tree
planting, rewetting
Fencing and erosion
control
Extensive tree
planting, in-stream
attenuation
Leaky dams, wet
woodland restoration
Summary of NFM monitoring
potential, alignment with EA maps
and impact
Desk study only. Proposals not
consistent with EA opportunities
map. Possible direct impact on flows
through Stocksbridge into Don but
disconnections by road network.
Extensive walkover. Proposed work
correlates with EA opportunities
map. Longitudinal monitoring along
stream. YW impact for reservoir
levels.
Desk study only. EA opportunities
map identifies possible further
opportunities. Possible impact on
surface water flooding in Low
Bradfield
Extensive walkover. Proposed work
correlates with EA opportunities
map. Longitudinal monitoring at
confluences. YW impact for reservoir
levels.
Extensive walkover. Proposed work
correlates only in part with EA
opportunities map. Longitudinal
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 5

13
Rocher End
(SK 265 930)
Bog restoration,
leaky dams
monitoring at confluences. YW
impact for reservoir levels.
Extensive walkover. Proposed work
correlates only in part with EA
opportunities map. Longitudinal
monitoring along Rocher End Brook.
YW impact for reservoir levels.
Thirteen interventions have been identified within the SLLP delivery plan as at
December 2017 (Table 1). Of these, six are considered for enhanced monitoring within
this report. Four of these have been visited and walked over; the remaining two require
further survey. One intervention, 'Midhope - Hagg Brook Catchment Lab' is here
recommended to be the subject of a separate research grant bid to the Engineering
and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) - see section on 'Extended NFM
Research Opportunities'.
Whitwell Moor (Site 1)
Whitwell Moor is located south-west of Stocksbridge at around 300 m above sea level.
The land slopes steeply to the north-east at an average slope of around 10%. Drainage
from overland flow ('north brook') and Whitwell Spring ('east brook') naturally
converges to New Hall Brook, which descends to join the Little Don directly west of
Garden Village.
The natural drainage network is disrupted by roads at Long Lane and New Hall Lane,
and likely also by culverting and field drainage in agricultural land at New Hall and
Greave House Farm (needs ground truth). The New Hall Brook appears to emerge
from a culvert below New Hall and flows through a wooded clough for 500 m before
disappearing again, presumably into a further culvert beneath two roads (including the
B6088 Manchester Road). The Flood Risk from Surface Water map (https://floodwarning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/map)
suggests around a
dozen properties and both roads are at risk of flooding due to flow restriction in this
culvert, pooling and overspill.
The proposed NFM-related interventions are:
the creation of leaky dams in the north brook;
removal of rhododendron and pine to restore wet heath on the east brook;
restoration of the pond at Whitwell Spring.
Figure 1a shows the EA Opportunities Map and Figure 1b the SCIMAP combined flow
connectivity and erosion risk for the site. Note these factors are presented on a relative
rather than absolute scale and are indicative.
Rather than removal of trees, the site is identified as opportunity for planting of riparian
woodland to reduce overland flows into the stream network. However it is recognised
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 6

that this option is not consistent with conservation of landscape or ecological value for
this site. Overland flow is rather diffuse on the Whitwell Moor site itself. There is some
erosion potential associated with north brook and east brook, but it is difficult to assess
a priori how the disconnection by roads and farmland affects the impacts downstream.
On balance, in principle this site has very direct NFM benefits to a significant number
of properties and infrastructure in Stocksbridge. More information is needed on actual
flood occurrences in this location. It is also essential to understand the impact of the
road network on drainage pathways from this site in order to assess whether
interventions on the Moor are likely to have any effect on flow downstream.
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 7

Figure 1. a) EA opportunities map and b) SCIMAP combined flow connectivity and
erosion risk for Whitwell Moor.
A walkover survey would be required to advise on specific design considerations for
works on the Moor itself. It is unclear from desk study where and how leaky dams
would be emplaced but on this basis this component of work is not recommended
unless there are key landscape/ecological benefits also. It is very possible that the key
targets for effective flood mitigation would be farm management practices and on-farm
measures (ditch-blocking, offline storage) downslope of Long Lane, and improvement
of flood storage in New Hall Wood.
Church Farm - Sick Brook (Site 2)
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 8

Sick Brook flows for 1 km north to south from the eastern margins of moorland at
Cowell Flat, cutting between Smallfield Ridge and Rocher Edge to join the Agden
Reservoir east of Smallfield Farm and dropping around 130 m along its course at a
mean gradient of around 10%. There are no significant assets at risk of flooding,
however as with many sites in the SLLP benefits to reservoir management potential
for controlling downstream flows are envisaged by slowing flow within the catchment
during extreme conditions.
A walkover survey suggests that the current stream is largely within its natural course
but has been subject to minor interventions related to field boundary creation and
enclosure. There are widely-spaced mature trees throughout length of the stream.
Desk study indicates that there may be an existing pond/dam (marked 'well' on OS
MasterMap) at SK 25975 92975.
The proposed NFM interventions are:
exclusion of animals and tree-planting to restore wet woodland at SK 256 936;
exclusion of animals and tree-planting to conserve wet rushy tributary, and
earth bund to rewet dry bog at SK 259 932.
Additional in-stream measures and/or flow attenuation by temporary storage were
considered but did not have the support of the landowner/tenants and so are not
discussed here. Figure 2 shows the EA Opportunities Map for Sick Brook and Rocher
End.
Figure 2. EA Opportunities Map for Sick Brook and Rocher End.
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 9

At this site, the proposed measures partially align with the opportunities identified by
the EA, which indicates creation of riparian woodland along the length of the stream.
In addition, the EA identify the potential for runoff attenuation measures further
upstream of the proposed interventions, right at the head of the stream around SK 257
940.
Figure 3 shows SCIMAP models for flow connectivity and erosion risk at Sick Brook,
Rocher End and Bradfield. This confirms the potential for slowing flow above Rocher
Head (first proposed intervention) and further the importance of the bog sites below
Rocher Woods (second proposed intervention) for both flow and erosion potential. On
this basis, the initial assessment is that both proposed interventions may have
significant effect on the peak flows and sediment loads within the Sick Brook and
therefore have potential value as demonstrators for conservation-led NFM activities.
Figure 3. SCIMAP modelling of combined flow connectivity and erosion risk for area
around Agden Reservoir.
Design considerations. The proposed interventions are categorised as a mixture of
'riparian woodland', 'headwater management' and 'runoff management'. Based on
extensive literature review in the Working with Natural Processes (WWNP) study,
there is judged to be medium to low confidence in our understanding of the flood risk
benefits of these measures (Environment Agency, 2017). For headwater management
and runoff management features, a critical knowledge gap exists around what
happens when they are full (during extended high flows) and how they perform in
clusters along a catchment. These considerations should be taken into account in
design of the interventions, in particular with a view to ensure that 'catastrophic'
overflow events are not generated.
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 10

Baseline requirements for monitoring. Several interventions are proposed or
possible along a single linear reach. In order to address the knowledge gap around
the clustering or combination of interventions, a sound understanding of the stream
hydrograph at the bottom of the reach is required before and after the intervention
programme. This Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) approach will enable the overall
impact of the interventions to be evaluated throughout and beyond the end of the
SLLP.
Figure 4. Possible monitoring locations at Sick Brook.
Figure 4 shows proposed monitoring sites at Sick Brook. A high-resolution flow and
velocity monitoring station should be installed downstream of the lowest proposed
intervention. This should enable quantification of the continuous stream discharge
response over as long a period as possible, ideally at least one year to capture the
seasonal range of rainfall events, vegetation cover and surface moisture conditions
present in the catchment. Surveys to characterise these changes in catchment
conditions should also be made. Ideally in situ rainfall data would also be collected,
however a Met Office weather station is available within 2 km at High Bradfield
(operated by The University of Sheffield) from which suitable data may be obtained.
At each intervention, measurement of river stage data immediately upstream and
downstream is recommended and if possible this should capture representative
conditions before and after intervention. Given the small stream size and potentially
diffuse nature of the interventions, it is proposed that simple river stage measurement
is installed at c. 250 m intervals along the length of the Sick Brook.
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 11

Cross Farm, Low Bradfield (Site 5)
The Cross Farm site lies to the north-west of Woodfall Lane on the steep hillside
between High Bradfield and Low Bradfield. The site identified for measures is around
300 m long in the downslope direction and drops 50 m at an average slope of around
18%. There is a small watercourse on the site, although the natural drainage crosses
the line of the road and becomes a stream further downslope.
Based on desk study only, it appears that it is culverted under the road and again at
its downstream end, where it passes between or under eight residential properties and
a public park before joining the Dale Dike immediately upstream of Damflask
Reservoir. The Flood Risk from Surface Water map (https://flood-warninginformation.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/map)
suggests the properties are at
risk of surface water flooding from the watercourse. There is thus the potential for
direct NFM impact from this intervention.
Figure 5. EA Opportunities Map for Cross Farm, Low Bradfield.
The proposed interventions are:
fencing of an existing wooded pasture to reduce/remove animals;
installation of a new drinking water supply to move animals off-site.
Figure 5 shows the EA Opportunities Map for Cross Farm. On the site identified, there
is some minor opportunity for improving woodland density, which will be a presumed
consequence of the intervention. There is also opportunity identified for runoff
attenuation measures (pink indication on Fig 5) both within the site and more
extensively downslope in the field to the east of the road.
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 12

Cross Farm represents an extremely limited catchment site with no major stream and
therefore from the perspective of national NFM evidence base presents limited
research opportunity. SCIMAP modelling (Figure 3) indicates limited flow connectivity
or erosion risk relative to other locations.
However, in contrast to several other sites in the SLLP there is a potential direct benefit
to property assets. From this perspective, and as a demonstrator of local 'micro-NFM'
measures protecting defined assets at a hillslope scale, the site is potentially worth
monitoring to assess benefits.
A walkover survey is required to assess the site in more detail and identify appropriate
and feasible monitoring. Local expert evidence would be useful to assess the nature
and scale of the flood risk to properties. If this is significant, then given the small size
of the sub-catchment, the initial recommendation would be to extend the site to include
the whole of the watercourse down to the dwellings for maximum impact from a set of
runoff or flow attenuation features such as leaky dams.
Hoyles Farm (Site 6)
This site refers to an area around 1 km 2 at the south end of Hoyles Farm, Strines,
centred on the private property of Bents House. The area forms the head of the Strines
valley. The land drops from south-west to north-east, from 360 m at the head of the
Jacob Plantation to 250 m at Strines Reservoir, an average slope of around 10%
(steepest at Jacob Plantation, shallowest at Pears House Clough).
Figure 6. SCIMAP flow connectivity and erosion risk for Hoyles Farm (south).
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 13

Figure 6 shows the site. There are two main streams on the site, neither formally
named. The stream in Pears House Clough rises on Strines Moor and flows under a
minor road in a culvert before diffusing in a complex of springs and sumps into a broad
area of rough wet moor, in places with extensive sphagnum bog. Flow becomes more
organised downslope until a single channel forms upstream of an area of previously
enclosed and replanted woodland. The total length of this watercourse from the road
to the reservoir is 700 m.
The stream at Bents House is dendritic and by the time it meets the reservoir drains
five main headwaters. The proposed intervention is focused on two of these adjacent
to Jacob Plantation, with the neighbouring Bull Piece branch a potentially useful
'control'. At Jacob Plantation, a steep, wet hillslope with existing alder cover and
apparent groundwater seepage drains to a deeply-incised clough. Mature beech cover
on the western slope is occupied by active badger setts. The stream branch between
Jacob and Bull occupies a shallower, broader slope with extensive rushes and clear
evidence for groundwater seepage. During the walkover survey, three rubble piles
were noted at the top of a shallow, reed-filled gulley at approximately SK 227 889.
These appear to be an attempt at runoff reduction and/or slope stabilisation; other
gulleys immediately to the west show evidence of headward erosion, possibly by
groundwater sapping - this appears to be a springline around 340 m asl coinciding
with a geological boundary between sandstone and mudstone.
The proposed interventions are:
Figure 7. EA Opportunities Map for Hoyles (South).
fencing to remove animal access to the bog above Pears House Clough with
scattered tree planting;
fencing and tree planting at Jacob Plantation;
installation of coarse woody debris / leaky dam at Bents House
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 14

The proposed interventions are broadly consistent with the EA opportunities identified
in Figure 7, which largely comprise creation of additional riparian woodland with some
flow attenuation features recommended to the west of Jacob Plantation. Figure 6
confirms that both proposed intervention sites are foci for flow connectivity and erosion
potential, although the SCIMAP model does not take account of the minor road which
almost certainly disconnects erosion and acts to reduce runoff travel times.
Design considerations. On the basis of the walkover survey and the desk study, it is
likely that the proposed interventions will have some positive NFM benefits but it is
difficult to determine a priori how great these will be. This is because at both
intervention sites the proposed work is a mixture of different NFM categories -
headwater management, runoff management and riparian woodland. In both
instances, this is desirable for both ecological and landscape value; this compounds
the uncertainties inherent in the scientific literature around all three of these
intervention types (Environment Agency, 2017).
For headwater management and runoff management features, a critical knowledge
gap exists around what happens when they are full (during extended high flows) and
how they perform in clusters along a catchment. These considerations should be taken
into account in design of the interventions, in particular with a view to ensure that
'catastrophic' overflow events are not generated in exceptional storm conditions.
However, given the lack of public or private assets in direct connection with the
streams at this site, these interventions do present an opportunity to assess their
relative performance under a wide range of initial conditions and rainfall intensities.
The proposal for coarse woody debris / engineered logjam at Bents House should be
reviewed after monitoring. Given the identification of the opportunity by the EA for flow
attenuation features on the stream between Jacob Plantation and Bull Piece, these
may prove a more rational focus for intervention and monitoring to assess NFM
performance. A more detailed walkover of this part of the site is required in order to
make recommendations for specific design of flow attenuation, which may be ditch
blocking (leaky barriers), bunds or further tree planting.
Baseline requirements for monitoring. As with Sick Brook, establishment of a
baseline within a BACI monitoring design is essential if the impacts of relatively limited
interventions within a small catchment are to be assessed. The 4-year timescale of
the overall SLLP programme makes this a realistic option. A proposed monitoring
scheme is shown in Figure 8.
At Pears House Clough, the baselining also present an interesting opportunity to
assess the impact of the now-established clough planting programme in the lower
section of the stream. Placement of a robust flow and velocity monitoring station at the
base of the stream, with an additional flow station at the top of the existing plantation,
will achieve this as well as providing baseline data for the flow from the upstream area
targeted for intervention.
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 15

Figure 8. Proposed monitoring scheme for Hoyles (south). Intervention sites are
shown by solid-outline regions, control by dashed-line region.
At Jacob Plantation, baseline flow and velocity monitoring at the reservoir inlet is
combined with flow monitoring at each stream branch to assess the contributions from
the different parts of the catchment. The Bull Piece will act as a control (no
interventions) for Jacob Plantation. Flow attenuation features on the west branch of
Jacob Plantation stream would have more immediate effect than fencing on the east
side, allowing discrimination of relative benefits through continuous monitoring over
time.
Langsett - Kiln Brook (Site 9)
The Langsett - Kiln Brook site comprises two streams which drain around 0.5 km 2 of
mainly Yorkshire Water-owned forestry to the north-west of Langsett Reservoir. The
Kiln Bank Brook rises on Swinden Farm and flows east for 750 m to an engineered
confluence with Hagg Brook. This latter arrives at the confluence from the east but
takes a circuitous route, almost certainly heavily modified by trunk road construction,
enclosure and forestry, eventually rising some 2 km upstream on the southern margin
of Cat Clough Head (moorland). Flow connectivity is almost certainly disrupted by the
trunk road A628 and drainage from the road may constitute a significant proportion of
flow during storm events (data needed to confirm). After meeting at SE 1973 0095, the
streams (continuing as Hagg Brook) flow due south for 350 m to meet the Little Don
immediately upstream of a newly installed fish pass and the inlet to the Langsett
Reservoir.
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 16

Kiln Bank Brook flows at the north side of improved pasture fields with forestry land to
the north. It is a small stream,

The proposed interventions are:
Fencing and restoration of wet woodland, chop and drop timber at Kiln Bank
Brook;
Chop and drop leaky dams at Hagg Brook above the confluence;
Leaky dams and potentially an earth bund at Hagg Brook below the confluence.
These are partially consistent both with the EA Opportunities Map and SCIMAP
modelling of the area which indicates significant potential runoff and erosion at Kiln
Bank Brook (figure not shown). On this basis, although there is no direct flood risk
associated with this site, there is significant potential benefit in NFM activity at this site
as a demonstrator providing evidence of impacts for conservation-led interventions,
and also extending the evidence base for clusters (or combinations) of interventions.
Design considerations. The extent of the proposals for Kiln Bank Brook does not
cover the whole area identified as an opportunity, and in practice this is likely
undesirable both in terms of loss of grazing land and possibly on landscape grounds.
Creation of flow attenuation on Kiln Bank Brook is not indicated by the EA but this
does not mean it would be ineffective; it is likely the spatial scale of features here (the
stream included) is too small for them to have been assessed using the EA modelling.
Monitoring would be required to assess the baseline flows and stream behaviour
during storm events under a range of conditions.
The restoration of more extensive wet woodland around the confluence of the two
streams is potentially significant but only if the combined flow during floods exceeds
the channel capacity, in particular the capacity of the culvert beneath the bridlepath
immediately below the confluence. Vertical drop in both stream channels (would
require survey) may be sufficient to promote flow diversion into the upstream side(s)
of the wet woodland area, enabling it to be classed as floodplain reconnection as well
as riparian woodland. Its capacity to act as storage would depend in part on the flows
through each channel, which requires monitoring in advance of detailed design work.
The current depth of vegetation all along Hagg Brook is likely already performing a
significant flow mitigation function. Addition of woody debris to the channel itself would
likely have some impact but it is difficult to assess the significance of this. If the ground
is perennially saturated then there is little opportunity for additional infiltration storage.
If thinning of existing vegetation in order to promote the spread of the wet woodland
along the channels is proposed, then installation of woody debris/leaky dams and/or
some earthworks to created bunded storage areas would be required while the
vegetation cover regenerates.
Baseline requirements for monitoring. Figure 10 shows an outline of possible
monitoring for this site. A consideration on this site is that all sections are potentially
publically accessible, and key desirable monitoring locations lie immediately adjacent
to public rights of way. A robust, high resolution flow and velocity station is required to
give a baseline enabling BACI data for discrimination of intervention impacts. this is
proposed at the confluence of the two streams, supporting level-only monitoring
upstream of the proposed wet woodland, upstream of the proposed channel
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 18

interventions, and downstream of all interventions at the outlet of the site. This should
enable individual and summative effects to be evaluated and assessed. A further
aspect of monitoring here is for water quality; the proximity of a major road means that
there is potential for low quality water in Hagg Brook, compared with Kiln Bank Brook
(which may have higher levels of faecal pathogens and nutrient contaminants). An
assessment of this, together with evaluation of impacts of conservation-led NFM
measures on water quality entering the reservoir system, would be of additional
interest.
Figure 10. Proposed monitoring schedule for Langsett - Kiln Bank Brook
Rocher End (Site 13)
Rocher End Brook drains an area of around 0.5 km 2 comprising moorland, rough and
improved pasture above Rocher Edge. The site is immediately adjacent to the Church
Farm - Sick Brook site. South-east of Rocher End the stream falls through a steep and
impressive gorge, dropping from 320 m above sea level to 190 m over 850 m stream
length - a mean gradient of 15%. Immediately above the gorge the stream is culverted
for around 400 m beneath improved pasture, fed by a network of field drains installed
around 1980. Above this, on rough moorland the stream drains a relatively large area
of heather and sphagnum bog, perhaps raised in some parts.
A walkover survey indicated several potential opportunities for NFM intervention:
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 19

fencing off bog, gully blocking and reversal of land drainage at Penistone Road
(connected with site 2 work plan);
fencing off Agden Rocher bog;
installation of engineered log jams at SK 265 929.
EA Opportunities and SCIMAP flow and erosion modelling for Rocher End are
provided in Figures 2 and 3. The Penistone Road bog is clearly highlighted as a
potential (shown as woodland planting with some flow attenuation) and there is some
indication of potential for in-stream measures further down the gorge.
On the basis of the walkover and desk surveys, there is strong potential for
conservation-led NFM demonstration at this site, although no direct benefit to
reduction in flood risk to downstream assets.
Design considerations. The Penistone Road bog intervention is clearly a headwater
management approach in a peat moorland setting and there is good evidence that bog
restoration and gully blocking reduces peak flows at small scales such as this site.
There is good background data and experience from e.g. Moors for the Future for the
design and implementation of these measures.
The fencing of Agden Rocher bog will likely have limited NFM benefit. It is already an
established bog and the flow paths downstream are heavily vegetated with some
evidence of active application of coarse woody debris already. Another area of land
near Bowsen (SK 266 931) may be of more direct potential for bog restoration (query
landowner) as it is currently poor wet ground draining directly to the Rocher End Brook
through a broken drystone wall.
There is potential for in-stream flow attenuation and storage features on the Rocher
End Brook, but this should be measured against the small size of the catchment, the
lack of direct flood risk benefit, the need to measure impacts of the headwater
management upstream, and the presence of public rights of way very close to the
proposed site. The gorge is also used by a local motocross group.
Baseline requirements for monitoring. A monitoring station plan is shown in Figure
11. A station at the top of the gorge, where the culvert emerges under a green lane, is
recommended as the least obtrusive and most controlled stream section for discharge
measurement to assess both baseline discharge and the impacts of headwater
management along Penistone Road.
Two additional level monitoring stations are indicated at the outlet to the bog
restoration, and halfway down the gorge to assess along-channel changes in the
stream hydrograph through existing channel morphology changes during storm
events. As baseline data, this will help inform whether the proposed in-stream
interventions are likely to have significant impact on flood hydrographs, or not.
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 20

Figure 11. Rocher End monitoring plan.
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 21

Proposed monitoring programme
Summary of monitoring requirements and field equipment
Six sites have been included in this review. Two of these are not subject to equipment
specification since further site survey is required to assess the suitability for NFM
monitoring. Based on the proposed monitoring schemes outlined above for the other
four sites, a schedule of monitoring activity and associated equipment requirements
has been developed.
The NFM monitoring proposed here is designed around three principles:
high-quality baseline hydrological characterisation of the catchment
containing the intervention, continuing during and post-construction of the
intervention;
specific recording of intervention site conditions and hydrology before and
after intervention;
wider catchment monitoring of key parameters controlling streamflow -
rainfall, land cover, soil moisture.
These three types of data will be used alongside detailed site survey using traditional
and photogrammetric methods to parameterise hydrological models for each site,
which will allow prediction and testing of the impacts from the NFM interventions. Table
2 summarises the key monitoring activities proposed here.
Table 2. Schedule of monitoring activities and equipment
Activity Specification / purpose Item / method Cost to SLLP
Site survey
High spatial-resolution
digital elevation model
Vegetation cover and
seasonal variation
Total Station survey and/or
drone photogrammetry.
Planet Labs daily satellite
imagery.
Landsat/Sentinel imagery.
£0
(to be conducted by
SHU using existing
equipment as part of
research capability
development and
teaching)
Baseline
stream flow
High time-resolution
autonomous measure of
stream level (depth)
Precise and robust
Established technology
Unobtrusive / secure
OTT Orpheus Mini
pressure transducer level
monitor + installation
housing and data retrieval
£1,500 per unit
including fixings (six
units required)
(www.ott.com, UK
distributor based in
Sheffield)
Stagedischarge
calibration
Reliable relationship
between measured level
(stage) and water
volumetric flow rate
Obtained for a range of
low and high flows
Salt dilution method /
conductivity.
OTT Orpheus Mini can be
specified with conductivity
£0
(either included in
baseline measurement,
or using existing SHU
equipment)
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 22

Not required continuous,
can be retrospectively
applied if stage data are
consistent.
measure integral; SHU also
have conductivity probes.
Intervention
level gauging
Low cost (numerous
stations required), low
maintenance
Robust, relative measure
of stream level to indicate
hydrograph
Unobtrusive
Trail cams and gauging
posts.
These have been
demonstrated in remote
water level monitoring in
the UK and US (e.g.
Starkey et al. 2017)
£500 per unit including
ranging pole and fixings
(15 units required)
(http://www.naturespy.o
rg/, social enterprise
based in Wales.)
Soil and water
chemical
parameters
Low cost on site
measurements
Possibility to incorporate
in citizen science or
SRWT work plans
Sample retrieval for SHU
analysis
Low cost colorimetric
assays and sampling
techniques as outlined in
CABA (2017).
£800
(Sum will cover
maintaining a stock of
standard field and lab
chemical consumables
and specific PPE for
water sampling and
analysis.)
Citizen
Science #1:
catchmentwide
rainfall
monitoring
Accurate streamflow
modelling requires good
spatial resolution of
rainfall
Engagement of local
population with project
Garden rain gauges are
available widely
Participants agree to
submit measurements on a
regular basis via an online
form administered by SHU.
£400
(Fewer than 50
participants could cover
the whole SLLP area at
1 km resolution. Project
to provide SHU would
be responsible for
assessing uncertainty
in measurements,
coordinating training
and data continuity.)
Citizen
Science #2:
environmental
monitoring on
Public Rights
of Way
Accurate streamflow
modelling requires good
spatial resolution of soil
and landcover
parameters
Engagement of local
population and PROW
officers, Ramblers
Association etc.
There is at least one
PROW in around 95% of
grid squares in the SLLP
region. In the same way as
the www.geograph.org.uk
project, volunteers are
asked to collect simple
structured observations at
specific points on walks
and rambles.
£350
(Short training sessions
to be provided to
specific cohorts of
volunteers, eg. PROW
officers, Ramblers'
Association, Loxley
Commoners, Bradfield
Parish, etc.)
Participants encouraged to
submit measurements on a
regular basis via an online
form administered by SHU.
High quality baseline. Each site requires a well-established baseline dataset on its
pre-intervention hydrology both to inform design of the interventions (in terms of
potential storage volumes and predicted impact using modelling, and to determine
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 23

actual impact of the intervention post-implementation by comparing hydrographs for
similar rainfall events. The selected instruments enable low-maintenance, highresolution
data to be collected over long periods (battery life 3-5 years, easily replaced)
with minimal attendance (data can be downloaded monthly or as needed). Devices
are installed in a fixed steel pipe with lockable cap and are unobtrusive and not readily
identifiable as valuable instrumentation. Six units will be sufficient to achieve the
monitoring plans outlined at each site, with potential to reorganise data monitoring
sites as the project develops.
Instrumentation will measure only stream stage (level/depth) continuously (depending
on final specification, may also measure conductivity as a water quality parameter).
To obtain the actual volumetric flow at the measurement point, required for comparison
with modelling and to translate impacts of NFM into reporting measures, a 'stagedischarge'
calibration is required at each baseline measurement point. This can be
done using a simple non-hazardous salt dilution test, which can be made the focus of
SHU student-led research projects in 2018-19 before interventions are implemented.
At least one site (Langsett - Kiln Bank Brook) is likely to be impacted by pollution from
road runoff (A628 into Hagg Brook). Other sites may suffer agricultural contamination.
While not the main focus of NFM, additional water quality benefits are important to
make the case for conservation-led catchment management with particular reference
to drinking water quality (reservoir management) and the European Water Framework
Directive requirements for water bodies to achieve 'good' status. The monitoring
programme presents the opportunity for student-, volunteer- and citizen science
monitoring of water quality parameters before, during and after interventions to assess
their impact on water quality.
Specific recording of intervention site conditions. Baseline monitoring aims to
determine the impact of one or more interventions on the overall flow from a
catchment. Detailed site characterisation at each intervention is also important for
effective design and to monitor the impact of the intervention on the stream and its
surroundings. Due to the number of proposed interventions and the need for upstream
and downstream monitoring to assess effects, this is a potentially expensive exercise
in both monitoring equipment and time required to maintain it.
For initial site characterisation, drone photogrammetric survey of each site is
recommended. This is time-efficient and yields very high resolution (cm-scale) digital
surface models (DSM) which can be used to underpin site-scale flow and storage
modelling for intervention design. Drone survey can be used to map vegetation and
standing water and can be repeated seasonally. Field survey can be combined with
use of spaceborne satellite imagery (up to daily frequency via Planet Labs) and
airborne data (Lidar) as well as soil and geology datasets to parameterise site models.
All these datasets are available via SHU.
A low-cost and potentially powerful option for site-scale stream monitoring is the use
of 'trail-cams', widely used as remote wildlife camera traps. These have been used
recently in NFM in Northumberland (Starkey, 2017) and also in the USA and
elsewhere globally. The units are robust and discreet and have the benefit of recording
environmental/contextual information about the site as well as stream level,
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 24

continuously through infrared night-vision. The disadvantage is that the images
themselves need further processing to extract stream level data. This can be done
manually and fairly quickly; however it is possible that a student research project can
be established to develop an automated process. We propose each level monitoring
station to comprise one trailcam and one calibrated stream gauging pole, firmly
mounted and fixed to the stream bank.
Wider catchment monitoring. Monitoring of conservation-led Natural Flood
Management provides an opportunity to explore the use of citizen science to collect
another layer of important contextual data which is crucial to effective modelling and
interpretation of the baseline monitoring data in the assessment of the effectiveness
and impact of the proposed interventions.
Two aspects of the data requirements for monitoring and modelling the NFM impacts
of the proposed interventions lend themselves readily to citizen science techniques:
Rainfall is an essential input to hydrological models and given the small size of the
targeted sub-catchments the derivation of high-quality local rainfall records is
important. Research-grade rainfall gauges installed at each intervention site would
be prohibitive in terms of cost and maintenance requirements. We propose a
distributed approach in which residents throughout the SLLP region volunteer to
maintain a simple funnel rain gauge in their garden and commit to return regular
measurements (daily if possible). Fewer than 50 participating households could
cover the entire region at 1 km resolution (no point greater than 1 km distance from
a rain gauge). The whole data set could be calibrated with reference to the Met
Office weather station at High Bradfield (University of Sheffield), the Weston Park
Museum and EA-operated automated stations (and any others operating
independently within the region) as well as post hoc analysis of rainfall radar data.
What is lost in precision (measurement rigour) can be gained in the increased
granularity of rainfall mapping across the SLLP region, helping to improve
estimation of rainfall at specific intervention sites.
Soil moisture, field scale runoff and vegetation cover are critical elements of
runoff models. The EA Opportunities Map, SCIMAP and other national datasets
map these very crudely and contain no data on the variability of these parameters
over time. Nearly all of the 1 km National Grid squares covering the SLLP region
include at least one section of public footpath or bridle path. These Public Rights
of Way (PROW) offer legal access to areas which would otherwise be difficult to
negotiate. Regular monitoring by volunteers who are out walking (or working) in
the countryside would enable correction of streamflow monitoring outputs for
variations in antecedent (before rainfall) land surface conditions and provide
ground truth for the national datasets. We propose developing a simple web form
which volunteers can access on a smartphone to report semi-quantitative data on
the above parameters using simple scales such as that developed by
'CrowdWater', a Swiss project which uses citizen science to map hydrological
parameters (http://www.crowdwater.ch/en/welcome-to-crowdwater/).
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 25

Monitoring schedule and human resources
Proposed schedule of activity. Table 3 shows recommendations for the scheduling
of NFM interventions and monitoring activity across the four-year HLF funding period.
Some preliminary work can be done by SHU student projects prior to the formal start
of the SLLP funding.
Table 3. Proposed schedule of NFM monitoring and intervention
Period
Year Quarter Baseline Survey
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
Jul-Sep
Oct-Dec
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun
Jul-Sep
Oct-Dec
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun
Jul-Sep
Oct-Dec
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun
Jul-Sep
Oct-Dec
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun
Jul-Sep
Purchase and
install
monitoring
stations
Round 1
intervention
gauge
installation
Round 2
intervention
gauge
installation
Removal or
extension
Site highresolution
DEM
Stagedischarge
rating curves
Periodic resurvey
of
DEM, land
cover, soil
moisture &
chemical
indicators
Activity
Modelling and
analysis
Model setup
Calibration to
initial baseline
data
Design for
Round 1 sites
R1: 1-year
impacts
R2: design
R1: 2-year
impacts
R2: 1-year
impacts
All impacts
Final reporting
Interventions
Unmonitored
sites (3, 4, 7,
8, 10, 11, 12)
can be
initiated at any
stage
Round 1
interventions
(longer impact
times e.g.
vegetation)
Maintenance
Round 2
interventions
(rapid impact
e.g. CWD)
Maintenance
Maintenance
Citizen
Science
Engagement /
piloting and
volunteer
recruitment
Ongoing
monitoring
Celebration of
progress and
re-recruitment
Ongoing
monitoring
Celebration of
progress and
re-recruitment
Ongoing
monitoring
Project
conclusion
Review and
reporting
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 26

Contribution by Sheffield Hallam University. The opportunity to develop a working
relationship with the SLLP around the Natural Flood Management monitoring project
offers a range of opportunities for SHU research and teaching, which will provide
valuable in-kind contribution to the SLLP:
access to field sites for drone survey. The use of drones for precision
topographic and land surface survey is an area of active research interest at
SHU. The provision of drone survey to the SLLP to support this monitoring
project will enable new researchers to be trained and to practice drone
operations and novel survey and analysis techniques to be tested which will
benefit other research and teaching. We anticipate at least 24 skilled persondays
would be contributed through repeat surveying over the course of the
project.
student research projects. The installation and monitoring of hydrological
data; collection of contextual soil and water quality data; processing and
analysis of data collected through the citizen science element; hydrological
modelling at a range of scales; and assessment of impacts against ecological,
conservation and other parameters, all provide excellent scope for
undergraduate and postgraduate student projects which will provide rich
learning experiences for students as well as essential input to the SLLP. We
conservatively anticipate a minimum of one undergraduate project per year,
one MSc project every other year, and one summer internship project every
other year. This yields in total 231 skilled person-days over the course of the
project, plus 11 days of professional academic staff supervision.
research environment and facilities. Costing of academic time for services,
as well as in-kind contributions from student projects, implicitly includes benefits
from their access to the range of research resources and facilities available at
the university. This includes research journal subscriptions and library
resources, specialist software, laboratory analytical facilities and general field
equipment.
Human resources requirements. Coordination for the monitoring project as specified
will come from SHU and staff time is included in the budget. Additional academic staff
time is allocated against each student project and this represents further in-kind value
from SHU to the SLLP. SRWT will be required to provide labour and resources to
support installation of the baseline monitoring and level gauges as part of the
intervention works budgets on the project. The works required to install monitoring are
not significant and likely not exceed 6 person-days. Ongoing monitoring over the
lifetime of the project will normally be conducted by SHU, but training to key SRWT
staff on the collection and analysis of the data will be provided in order to ensure
continuity and sustainability of the data monitoring.
Requirements from SLLP partners. The success of the monitoring project, both in
terms of access to sites, data, evaluation of impacts, and engagement of public and
local stakeholders, requires that the project has the support of the SLLP partners and
key executive officers (especially EA and Yorkshire Water).
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 27

Indicative costs vs benefits of monitoring
Table 4 gives an outline costing of the proposed monitoring project. £25,000 is
requested from the HLF funding, covering costs of monitoring equipment and an
allocation of academic staff time to coordinate the project.
Based on the project outline specified above, a conservative valuation of the in-kind
contributions to the project from SHU is £48,000, giving a total project value of £73,000
and a cost:contribution ratio of 34:66. These contributions are mostly attributed to
student effort on projects integral to the monitoring programme, which can be directly
valued in respect of the time-equivalent of credits awarded to students on completion
of their dissertation module(s). The contributions also include around £9,000 worth of
academic staff time around project supervision, research time and training provision.
Table 4. Outline costings for proposed NFM monitoring.
Costs
Contributions
Item Unit cost Total Item Unit value Total
Baseline streamflow monitoring (6 units)
OTT Orpheus Mini
probe
£1,200
Fittings and fixings £133
£1,333 £8,000
Undergraduate
dissertation
(4 projects)
MSc individual
research project
(2 projects)
Staff-student
research projects
(2 projects)
Student research projects
28.5 skilled
days
43 skilled days
30 skilled days
Intervention gauge stations (15 units) £39,000
Trailcam IR camera £300 Professional services
80
OTT gauging staff £75 Project supervision professional
hours
Fittings and fixings £83
Site survey and
data analysis
24 skilled days
£458 £6,870
Provision of training 4 professional
to SRWT staff days
Citizen science £9,000
Garden rain gauges
(50 units)
£7.60
Training and coordination
(4 hours)
£78.50
£86.10 £695
Consumables
Field test kits, PPE,
£800
sample vials
Staff time for coordination
Dr Jon Bridge
£78.50 £8,635
(110 hours)
Total cost £25,000 Total contribution £48,000
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 28

Additional benefits to the SLLP from the NFM monitoring proposed here will accrue in
terms of outputs specific to the monitoring work which can be counted towards the
HLF project. These will include the cited volunteer hours; additional people engaged
via the citizen science; reports and publications / press releases; scientific articles;
conference presentations; and potential positive impacts on hydrology.
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 29

Bibliography
Cited references
CABA (2017). CABA Monitoring Equipment Guide. Available at
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hd08t1pfrvytu6f/CaBAEquipmentGuide.pdf?dl=0
Environment Agency (2017). Working with natural processes: one page summaries.
Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment
_data/file/654440/Working_with_natural_processes_one_page_summaries.pdf
Starkey E, Parkin G, Birkinshaw S, Large A, Quinn P and Gibson C (2017)
Demonstrating the value of community-based (‘citizen science’) observations for
catchment modelling and characterisation. Journal of Hydrology. 548, 801-817.
(doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.03.019)
Useful weblinks
The Catchment-Based Approach (CABA)
https://www.catchmentbasedapproach.org/resources/tools-and-casestudies
Environment Agency Working with Natural Processes, Surface Water Flood Risk
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-with-natural-processes-toreduce-flood-risk
https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/map
JBA Trust - online access to WWNP map data and case studies
http://naturalprocesses.jbahosting.com
SCIMAP online modelling of flow connectivity and erosion potential
http://www.scimap.org.uk
NFM Monitoring Programme Proposal, December 2017 30

Appendix 22
HLF Evaluation Workbook

1
HLF Landscape Partnerships - Output Data Form
Output Data Collection March 2016
Please read the User Guide before completing
THIS PAGE ONLY may be partly pre-populated. Please check, fill in all the missing data and correct any wrong entries.
IN ALL THE WORKSHEETS you need to enter your own LP data into the GREEN BOXES only - please do not change the content of
cells of other colours.
Please email the completed form to Marija Anteric or Richard Clarke at: cepar@cepar.org.uk
A) About yourself. Please enter your:
Name
Position
Address
Postcode
Telephone
Email
Keith Tomkins
Project Manager
Sheffield and Rotherham wildlife Trust
S2 2SF
07739 516226
k.tomkins@wildsheffield.com
B) About your LP scheme. Please enter the:
Partnership Name Sheffield Lakeland Landscape Partnership
HLF Country/ Region Yorkshire and the Humber Please choose from drop-down menu.
HLF reference number for your scheme LP-15-05140
Size of your LP area 145
sq km
OS Grid Reference for your LP area sk270925
centre point
Name of HLF Case Officer
Name of HLF Monitor or Mentor
Nick Rochford
Mike Harding
Date your LP scheme received Round 1 approval from HLF
Date or expected date of Round 2 (and LCAP) approval from HLF
Date or expected date of LP Scheme completion/ Final Report
Month Year
December Year
September 2018
October 2022
Please choose
from the dropdown
menus.
Status now (March 2016) Under assessment
In development Round 1 application approved, preparing LCAP and second round submission
Under assessment Second round application and LCAP submitted, awaiting decision
In delivery < 12 months Second round application or LCAP approved, in delivery but for less than 12 months
In delivery > 12 months Second round application approved, in delivery for more than 12 months
Nearing completion and preparing the Final Evaluation Report
Completed and HLF funding for the LP scheme now ended
C) About the data you have entered.
Is your data predicted or achieved data? Predicted (target) data
If your scheme is in development (Stage 1) or has If your scheme has been delivering (Stage 2) for more than twelve
had its Stage 2 pass for less than twelve months, months, then you should only enter your achieved data (the
you should enter your predicted (target) data. actual outputs from your scheme to date).
Please return this completed workbook no later than Friday April 15 2016 by email to:
If you have any queries, please contact Marija Anteric or Richard Clarke by email as above or
telephone:
After 15 April 2016 enquiries should be directed to Tracy Lisamore at HLF:
cepar@cepar.org.uk
( 020 7609 0245
TracyL@hlf.org.uk
( 020 7591 6034
Please enter below (or send us a separate note of) any information or comments that cannot be entered in other
worksheets (type in, or paste text into the formula bar above).

2
HLF Landscape Partnerships - Output Data Form
Output data collection March 2016
Advice & Support
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
A Advice and Support Activities Unit No Ha £
1 Landowners/farmers engaged No/Ha 10 771
2 Advisory visits made No
3 Advisory reports/plans written No
4 Wildlife surveys undertaken No/Ha 12
5 Management plans written No/Ha 3 400
6 Management agreements put in place No/Ha 1
7 Project grants awarded No/Ha/£
8 Successful agri-environment grant applications made/facilitated No/Ha/£
9 Sucessful other grant applications made/facilitated No/Ha/£
10 Land purchase No/Ha
11 Other (please specify): No
Total No 26 1171 0
If your LP scheme has been delivering for less than 12 months,
you should enter your predicted (target) data. If your scheme
has been delivering for more than 12 months, you should enter
your achieved data.
If we have not captured the advisory and support OUTPUT of your scheme please outline and quantify below (type in, or paste into the formula bar above).
If you anticipate longer term OUTCOMES as a result of your advisory and support work please describe these below (type in, or paste into the formula bar above).

3
HLF Landscape Partnerships - Output Data Form
Output data collection March 2016
Biodiversity & Landscape Features
Existing
A Designations Unit No Ha
1 AONB or NSA No/Ha
2 Heritage Coast No/Ha
3 LNR No/Ha
4 Local Site No/Ha 9 148.26
5 National Park No/Ha
6 NNR No/Ha
7 Ramsar Site No/Ha
8 Registered Battlefield No/Ha
9 Registered Park or Garden No/Ha
10 RIGS No/Ha
11 SAC or cSAC No/Ha
12 SPA No/Ha
13 SSSI or ASSI No/Ha
14 World Heritage Site (natural/ mixed) No/Ha
If your LP scheme has been
delivering for less than 12
months, you should enter your
predicted (target) data. If your
scheme has been delivering for
more than 12 months, you
should enter your achieved data.
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
Maintain extent Achieve cond. Restore Expand
B Grassland and Heath Unit
1 Calaminarian grassland Ha
2 Lowland calcareous grassland Ha
Former land use
(where relevant)
3 Lowland dry acid grassland Ha 14
4 Lowland heathland Ha 29 45
5 Lowland meadow Ha
6 Machair Ha
7 Mountain heath and willow scrub Ha
8 Purple moor grass & rush pasture Ha
9 Upland calcareous grassland Ha
10 Upland hay meadow Ha
11 Upland heathland Ha
12 Ha
Total Ha 29 0 59 0
C Woodland Unit Maintain extent Achieve cond. Restore Expand
1 Lowland beech & yew woodland Ha
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
Former land use
(where relevant)
2 Lowland mixed deciduous woodland Ha 400 36 50 environment
3 Native pine woodland Ha
4 Traditional orchard Ha 0.5 community orchard
5 Upland birchwood Ha
6 Upland mixed ashwood Ha
7 Upland oakwood Ha
8 Wet woodland Ha
9 Wood-pasture & parkland Ha
10 Restoration of PAWS* Ha 100
11 Other (please specify) Ha
Total Ha 0 400 136 50.5
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
Maintain extent Achieve cond. Restore Expand
D Wetland Unit
1 Blanket bog Ha
2 Lowland fen Ha
3 Lowland raised bog Ha
4 Reedbed Ha
5 Upland flushes, fens and swamps Ha
6 Wet grassland Ha 5
Total Ha 5 0 0 0
Former land use
(where relevant)
E Waterbodies Unit Maintain extent Achieve cond. Restore Expand
1 Lakes Ha
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
Former land use
(where relevant)
2 Ponds No 2 9 NFM
3 Rivers Km
4 Riparian habitat* Km 3.5
5 Riparian habitat* Ha
6 Other (please specify) No
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
Maintain extent Achieve cond. Restore Expand
F Coastal & Marine Unit
1 Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh Ha
2 Coastal saltmarsh Ha
3 Coastal sand dune Ha
4 Maritime cliff and slope Ha
5 Intertidal mudflats Ha
6 Reefs and lagoons Ha
7 Other (please specify) Ha
Total Ha 0 0 0 0
Former land use
(where relevant)
G Other Priority Habitats Unit Maintain extent Achieve cond. Restore Expand
1 Arable field margins Ha
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
Former land use
(where relevant)
2 Hedgerows Km 1.7
3 Inland rock outcrop and scree habitat Ha
4 Limestone pavement Ha
5 Open mosaic habitats on previously developed land Ha
6 Other (please specify) Ha
Data
H Other Landscape Features Unit Repair/Restore New
1 Dry stone walls* Km 40.05
2 Fencing* Km 0.018
3 Individual trees* No 40
I
1
Species Projects
Have you undertaken any individual species projects? Yes
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
Range Population Size
Brief Details
2 If yes, please list details below Km2 No
a Bats Km2 / No
b Goshawks Km2 / No
c Osprey Km2 / No
d Water Voles Km2 / No
e Nightjar Km2 / No
f Barn owl Km2 / No
g
Km2 / No
h
Km2 / No
J Other contribution to UKBAP & LBAPs
1 Please outline any other contribution to the UKBAP or LBAPs
Extensive non-specific references to BAP criteria written into project plans. Actual contributions to be assessed/documented during delivery.
K Have you reported biodiversity achievements on BARS? click to choose
If we have not captured key biodiversity and landscape outputs of your LP scheme please outline and quantify below (type in, or paste into the formula bar above).
For definitions of the UK BAP habitats used above please see
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5706
* = non UK BAP habitat/feature

4
HLF Landscape Partnerships - Output Data Form
Output data collection March 2016
Built Heritage Features
A Designations Unit Recorded Repaired Restored Conserved Interpreted Re-used
1 World Heritage Site (cultural) No
2 Conservation Area No
3 Grade 1/A Listed No
4 Grade 2*/B Listed No 1
5 Grade 2/C/C(S) Listed No 1
6 Registered Building at Risk No
7 Undesignated historic building or feature No 1 1
8 Registered Site or Monument No
9 Scheduled Monument No
10 Industrial heritage site No 1
11 Other (please specify) No
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
If your LP scheme has been delivering for less than 12
months, you should enter your predicted (target) data. If
your scheme has been delivering for more than 12
months, you should enter your achieved data.
B Projects/ features Unit Recorded Repaired Restored Conserved Interpreted Re-used
1 Civil No
Town Hall*
No
Village Hall*
No
2 Commercial/ financial No
3 Military No 1
4 Domestic/residential No
5 Education No
6 Health & welfare No 1
7 Memorial No
War Memorial*
No
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
8 Recreational (inc. sports, social) No
Performing arts venue* No 1 1
9 Religious building/monument No
Cathedral*
No
Church/chapel* No 1
Non-Christian place of worship*
No
Other ecclesiastical bldg/mon*
No
Other (please specify)
No
Total No 2 2 0 0 1 0
If we have not captured the key built heritage outputs of your LP scheme please outline and quantify below (type in, or paste into the formula bar above).
* = sub-category (e.g. Town Hall). If relevant complete, however do not also complete main category (e.g. Civil) to avoid double counting.

5
HLF Landscape Partnerships - Output Data Form
Output data collection March 2016
Industrial Maritime & Transport Features
A Designations Unit Recorded Repaired Restored Conserved Interpreted Re-used
1 Registered aircraft or airframe No
2 Registered historic ship No
Total No 0 0 0 0 0 0
B Projects/ features Unit Recorded Repaired Restored Conserved Interpreted Re-used
1 Agriculture/subsistence No 1
2 Communications (eg broadcasting, postal) No
3 Manufacturing No
Food processing*
No
Pottery*
No
Textiles*
No
4 Mining and extractive No
5 Power No
Water mill* No 3
Windmill*
No
6 Transport: Air No
Aircraft/airframe*
No
7 Transport: Combined No
Amphibious vehicle/craft*
No
Bridge/viaduct*
No
Aqueduct*
No
8 Transport: Maritime/ Inland Water No
Canal*
No
Harbour*
No
Lighthouse*
No
Pier*
No
Ship/boat*
No
9 Transport: Rail No
Cable lift/funicular*
No
Locomotive engine*
No
Rolling stock*
No
10 Transport: Road No
Bus/coach*
No
Motor car*
No
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
11 Water supply & drainage No 2
Total No 6 0 0 0 0 0
If your LP scheme has been delivering
for less than 12 months, you should enter
your predicted (target) data. If your
scheme has been delivering for more
than 12 months, you should enter your
achieved data.
If we have not captured the key industrial maritime and transport output of your LP scheme please outline and quantify below (type in, or paste into the formula bar above).
* = sub-category (e.g. Food processing). If relevant complete, however do not also complete main category (e.g. Manufacturing) to avoid double counting.

6
HLF Landscape Partnerships - Output Data Form
Output data collection March 2016
Museums Libraries and Archives Projects
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
A Designations Unit Catalogued Repaired Restored Exhibited Interpreted Stored
1 Designated / Recognised Collection No
2 Accredited museum No
3 National Archives approval No
Total No 0 0 0 0 0 0
If your LP scheme has been delivering
for less than 12 months, you should
enter your predicted (target) data. If
your scheme has been delivering for
more than 12 months, you should enter
your achieved data.
Please enter predicted OR achieved data (see front page)
B Projects/ features Unit Catalogued Repaired Restored Exhibited Interpreted Stored
1 Archive No
2 Gallery No
3 Library No
4 Museum No
5 Other collection / moveable objects No
Bell/ belfry/ belltower &c*
No
Painting*
No
Sculpture/statuary*
No
Other works of art*
No
Organ*
No
Sound and film*
No
Total No 0 0 0 0 0 0
If we have not captured the museum library and archive output of your LP scheme please outline and quantify below (type in, or paste into the formula bar above).
* = sub-category (e.g. Bell). If relevant complete, however do not also complete main category (e.g. Other collection / moveable object) to avoid double counting.

7
HLF Landscape Partnerships - Output Data Form
Output data collection March 2016
Participation and Learning Activities
Predicted/ achieved (see front page)
A Participation Unit No Beneficaries
1 Primary schools worked with No 4 600
2 Secondary schools worked with No 1 12
3 Colleges/universities worked with No 3 20
4 Youth groups worked with No 3 60
5 Community groups worked with No 47 300
6 Community consultation events held No 15 10
7 Other (please specify) No
Total No 73 1002
If your LP scheme has been delivering for less than 12
months, you should enter your predicted (target) data. If your
scheme has been delivering for more than 12 months, you
should enter your achieved data.
Predicted/ achieved (see front page)
B Learning Unit Activities Beneficaries
1 Learning resources/packs No 3
2 School visits to site No 20 600
3 Outreach visits to schools No 2
4 Vocational learning sessions for pupils/students No
5 Family learning actvities No 20 200
6 Adult learning activities 26 60
7 Teacher training No 5 100
8 Village/parish research projects No
9 Cultural tradition projects No 2 60
10 Oral history projects No 3 1000
11 Language projects No
12 Open days No 4 200
13 Festivals/re-enactments etc No
14 Exhibitions/displays No 4 1000
15 Guided tours/walks No 16 100
16 Tours/walks for disabled people No
17 Creation of new space for learning No
18 Creation of play space/equipment No
19 Conference paper delivered No 1 100
Total No 106 3420
If we have not captured the key cultural and educational OUTPUT of your LP scheme please outline and quantify below (type in, or paste into the
formula bar above).
If you anticipate longer term OUTCOMES as a result of your participation and learning work please describe these below
(type in, or paste into the formula bar above).

8
HLF Landscape Partnerships - Output Data Form
Output data collection March 2016
Access
Predicted/ achieved (see front page)
A Area & Linear Access Unit New Improved
1 Open access areas Ha
2 Footpaths Km 1
3 Bridleways Km
4 Cycle tracks Km
5 Green lanes Km
6 Pathway accessible for disabled people Km
7 Other routes/tracks/paths Km 2
If your LP scheme has been delivering for less than 12
months, you should enter your predicted (target) data. If your
scheme has been delivering for more than 12 months, you
should enter your achieved data.
Predicted/ achieved (see front page)
B Trails, Projects, Equipment Unit New Improved
1 Nature Trails No
2 Nature Trails Km
3 Heritage Trails No
4 Heritage Trails Km
5 Erosion control projects No
6 Disabled access equipment No 1
7 Other (please specify) No
Activities
Beneficaries
8 Guided walk projects No 10
9 Health projects, walks &c No 4 Restricted mobility
Predicted/ achieved (see front page)
C Intellectual Access Unit New Improved
1 Visitor information facility No
2 Interpretation boards No 15
3 Audio, tactile and BSL interpretation No 4
4 Leaflets No 55
5 Guides/booklets No 17
6 Websites No 1 2
7 DVD/Films No 2
8 Blogs No 3
9 Community archive No 3
10 Other (please specify) No 16
Total 116 2
If we have not captured the key access OUTPUTS of your LP scheme please outline and quantify below (type in, or paste into the formula bar above).
Other' above is a new art installation about the Sheffield Flood. And 15 Geocaches.
If you anticipate longer terms OUTCOMES as a result of your LP scheme please outline and quantify below (type in, or paste into the formula bar above).

9
HLF Landscape Partnerships - Output Data Form
Output data collection March 2016
Visitors
A Annual Visits Unit Visitors
1 Baseline visitor numbers (development stage) No
2 Predicted visitor numbers (schemes delivering under 12
No
2 months)
3 Actual visitor numbers (schemes delivering more than twelve
No
4 months)
B Visitor age profile for most recent available year Unit Percentage
1 Under 11 years of age %
2 11 - 13 %
3 14 - 16 %
4 17 - 18 %
5 19 - 25 %
6 26 - 44 %
7 45 - 59 %
8 60+ %
Total 100%
Information that you are able to collect on visitor
numbers may well be fragmentary or lacking. We
recognise that you may be unable to estimate the impact
of your LP scheme on visitor numbers over the whole LP
area but hope you have information for individual
projects or events/ sites.
Where you only have visitor information for particular
projects or sites/ events, please enter the information
that you have and provide further information in the
boxes at the bottom of this page.
C Visitor gender profile for most recent available year Unit Percentage
1 Male %
2 Female %
Total 100%
D Visitor ethnic profile for most recent available year Unit Percentage
1 Asian (Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani, other) %
2 Asian (Chinese) %
3 Black (Caribbean, African, other) %
4 Mixed Ethnic Group %
5 Mixed %
6 White %
7 Irish Traveller (NI only) %
Total 100%
You may or may not have collected
information on ethnicity and if you have
done so, your categories are unlikely to
match those used here. If you are
unable to complete this box but you
have information please let us know in
the box at the bottom of this page or
send it to us separately.
E Visitor occupational profile for most recent avail yr Unit Percentage
1 Higher managerial/professional %
2 Lower managerial %
3 Intermediate occupations %
4 Small employers/own account workers %
5 Lower supervisory/technical occupations %
6 Semi-routine occupations %
7 Routine occupations %
8 Long term unemployed/never worked %
Total 100%
You may or may not have collected information on
occupation and if you have done so, your categories
may be different from those used here. If you are
unable to complete this box but you have information
please let us know in the box at the bottom of this page
or send it to us separately.
F Visitor Disabilities Unit Percentage
1
Of the visitors in the most recent available year, what
percentage considered themselves as having a disability?
%
Please tell us how you collect visitor information. Do you use face to face survey, questionnaires, ticket information, electronic/manual counting or other methods?
Which site(s) is the visitor information based on? Do you have other visitor feedback you would like to tell us about (e.g. what visitors are coming to do, or look at / experience?)
(type in, or paste into the formula bar above).
Please let us have any visitor data you may have which is not incorporated in sections A - F above, relating to the impact of your LP scheme (type in, or paste into the formula bar above). find it
easier to send this information as a separate document.

10
HLF Landscape Partnerships - Output Data Form
Output data collection March 2016
Volunteers
A Volunteer Input Unit Data
1 How many volunteers have/will have been involved in your LP scheme? No 303
2 How many volunteer hours have they/will they have delivered? No 6802
B Volunteer age profile for most recent available year Unit Volunteer nos. (%)
1 Under 11 years of age %
2 11 - 13 %
3 14 - 16 %
4 17 - 18 %
5 19 - 25 %
6 26 - 44 %
7 45 - 59 %
8 60 - 74 %
9 Over 75 %
Total 100% 0
If your LP scheme has been delivering for less than 12
months, you should enter your predicted (target) data. If your
scheme has been delivering for more than 12 months, you
should enter your achieved data.
You should have reasonably good information about your
volunteer ages and genders. Please enter this information,
as estimates if you do not have the actual figures (please
enter information as percentages of the total).
C Volunteer gender profile for most recent available year Unit Percentage
1 Male %
2 Female %
Total 100% 0
D Volunteer ethnic profile for most recent available year Unit Percentage
1 Asian (Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani, other) %
2 Asian (Chinese) %
3 Black (Caribbean, African, other) %
4 Mixed Ethinic Group %
5 Mixed %
6 White %
7 Irish Traveller (NI only) %
Total 100% 0
You may or may not have collected information on ethnicity
and if you have done so, your categories may not match
those used here. If you are unable to complete this box but
you have information please let us know in the box at the
bottom of this page or send it to us separately.
E Volunteer occupational profile for most recent available year Unit Percentage
1 Higher managerial/professional %
2 Lower managerial %
3 Intermediate occupations %
4 Small employers/own account workers %
5 Lower supervisory/technical occupations %
6 Semi-routine occupations %
7 Routine occupations %
8 Long term unemployed/never worked %
Total 100% 0
If you have collected information on volunteer occupations
your categories may not match those used here. If you are
unable to complete this box please provide this information in
the box at the bottom of this page or send it to us separately.
Please note this information relates to the occupational
background of your volunteers, NOT to the categories in
which you may have registered them in relation to match
funding.
F Volunteer Disabilities Unit Percentage
1
Of the your volunteers in the most recent available year, what percentage
considered themselves as having a disability?
%
Do you have other volunteer information or feedback you would like to tell us about?
For example, motivation for volunteeering, number of sites volunteers have worked on, types of activities undertaken by volunteers etc (type in, or paste into the formula bar above).
Please tell us about OUTCOMES realised as a result of people undertaking voluntary activities (type in, or paste into the formula bar above).

11
HLF Landscape Partnerships - Output Data Form
Output data collection March 2016
Employment
predicted/ achieved (see front page)
A Jobs Created Unit
External Jobs
Internal Jobs (LP
(suppliers,
staff etc)
contractors etc)
How many new jobs (Full Time Equivalent) has your LP scheme created to
FTE
date in the following sectors?
1 Conservation & heritage FTE 3.6
2 Learning, interpretation and outreach FTE 1.6
3 LP scheme management and administration FTE 1
4 Other (please specify) FTE
Total FTE 6.2 0
predicted/ achieved (see front page)
External Jobs
Internal Jobs (LP
B Jobs Safeguarded Unit
(suppliers,
scheme staff etc)
contractors etc)
How many existing jobs (full time equivalant) has your LP scheme
FTE
safeguarded to date in the following sectors?
1 Conservation & heritage FTE 0.5
2 Learning, interpretation and outreach FTE 0.4
3 LP scheme management and administration FTE 0.4
4 Other (please specify) FTE
Total FTE 1.3 0
C Employee Age Profile Unit Percentage
1 11 - 13 %
2 14 - 16 %
3 17 - 18 %
4 19 - 25 %
5 26 - 44 %
6 45 - 59 %
7 60 - 74 %
8 Over 75 %
Total 100% 0
D Employee Gender Profile Unit Percentage
1 Male %
2 Female %
Total 100% 0
E Employee Ethnic Profile Unit Percentage
1 Asian (Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani, other) %
2 Asian (Chinese) %
3 Black (Caribbean, African, other) %
4 Mixed Ethinic Group %
5 Mixed %
6 White %
7 Irish Traveller (NI only) %
Total 100% 0
Any information you may have on ethnicity may
not match the categories used here. If you are
unable to complete this box but you have
relevant information please let us know in the
box at the bottom of this page or send it to us
separately.
F Employee Disabilities Unit Percentage
1
Of the employees in the last 12 months, what percentage considered
themselves as having a disability?
%
Please tell us how you collect employment information. Has this involved economic impact study or other methods (i.e. how robust are the figures?) (type in, or paste into the
formula bar above).
Please let us have any other information relating to the wider impact of your LP scheme on local employment or the economy (type in, or paste into the formula bar above).

12
HLF Landscape Partnerships - Output Data Form
Output data collection March 2016
A1 Training Delivered - Land managers / rural businesses Unit Courses Days People Trained
1 Land and habitat management training No
2 Rural skills and heritage conservation training No
3 Tourism and business development training No
4 Participation/learning activity training No
4 Other training courses No
5 Apprenticeships No
6 Work placements No
7 Other (please specify) No
Total No 0 0 0
predicted/ achieved data (see front page)
A2 Training Delivered - Volunteers Unit Courses Days People Trained
1 Land and habitat management training No 24
2 Rural skills and heritage conservation training No 356
3 Tourism and business development training No
4 Participation/learning activity training No 5 5 284
4 Other training courses No
5 Apprenticeships No 5
6 Work placements No 4
7 Other (please specify) No
Total No 5 5 673
predicted/ achieved data (see front page)
A3 Training Delivered - Staff Unit Courses Days People Trained
1 Land and habitat management training No
2 Rural skills and heritage conservation training No
3 Tourism and business development training No
4 Participation/learning activity training No
4 Other training courses No
5 Apprenticeships No
6 Work placements No
7 Other (please specify) No
Total No 0 0 0
The following sections B-G relate to all trainees
Training and Skills
B Trainee Age Profile Unit Percentage
1 11 - 13 %
2 14 - 16 %
3 17 - 18 %
4 19 - 25 %
5 26 - 44 %
6 45 - 59 %
7 60 - 74 %
8 Over 75 %
Total 100% 0
C Trainee Gender Profile Unit Percentage
1 Male %
2 Female %
Total 100% 0
predicted/ achieved data (see front page)
D Trainee Ethnic Profile Unit Percentage
1 Asian (Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani, other) %
2 Asian (Chinese) %
3 Black (Caribbean, African, other) %
4 Mixed Ethinic Group %
5 Mixed %
6 White %
7 Irish Traveller (NI only) %
Total 100% 0
Any information you may have on ethnicity
may not match the categories used here.
If you are unable to complete this box but
you have relevant information please let us
know in the box at the bottom of this page
or send it to us separately.
E Trainee Disabilities Unit Percentage
1
Of the trainees in the last 12 months, what percentage considered themselves as
%
having a disability?
click to choose
F Training Accreditiation
Yes/No yes
1 Do you provide any accredited training courses?
yes no
2
a
b
c
d
If yes, please could you tell us about the courses and accreditation below
5 certified, 20 uncertified in Project 7
Please enter brief details of training course/accreditation
Please enter brief details of training course/accreditation
Please enter brief details of training course/accreditation
G Please tell us about the skills gained through the training
1 Animal husbandry & bee-keeping click to choose
2 Archaeological skills click to choose
3 Archiving click to choose
4 Blacksmithing click to choose
5 Building skills click to choose
6 Business skills click to choose
7 Collections conservation click to choose
8 Learning and interpretation skills click to choose
9 Habitat & land management click to choose
10 Health & safety click to choose
11 Heritage tourism skills click to choose
12 Horticultural skills click to choose
13 Industrial maritime transport skills click to choose
14 Local history click to choose
15 Industrial maritime & transport skills (restoration, conservation, maintenance) click to choose
16 Managing groups click to choose
17 Museum skills click to choose
18 Rural skills (inc walling, hedging and paths) yes
19 Species identification/biological recording skills click to choose
20 Textile/embroidery skills click to choose
21 Wood-turning click to choose
22 Working with people click to choose
23 Other (please specify) click to choose
24 Other (please specify) click to choose
25 Other (please specify) click to choose
Do you have other training OUTCOMES you would like to tell us about? For example, what have been the consequences of the training delivered; how many apprentices
have secured jobs as a result having undertaken an apprenticeship? (Type in, or paste into the formula bar above).

Appendix 23
Final SLLP Budget Summary

Project 1: Core Project
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading
Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work
New Building work
Other Capital work
Digital outputs
Equipment & materials - Capital
Other costs - Capital
Legal fees
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 0
Total 0
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading
Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs - 0 0
Training for Staff 6000 6000
Paid Training placements
Training for volunteers 1500 1500
Travel for Staff lease & fuel 18600 3500 22100
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 0 0
Equipment & materials - Activity PPE 1000 200 1200
Other Costs - Activity staff expenses,office equip 3300 660 3960
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity Legal fees, Professional fees 24000 1800 25800
Total 54,400.00 6,160.00 60,560.00
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading
Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment 500 0 500
Publicity & Promotion 14520 2904 17424
Evaluation 0
Other Costs Project overheads 211818 211818
Full Cost Recovery 0
Contingency 20000 20000
Inflation
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer Time
Total 246,838.00 2,904.00 249,742.00
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time
HLF Grant request 688202
Total 688202
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 310302
Total Delivery Income 0
HLF Delivery Grant request 310302
HLF Delivery Grant % 100

Project 2: Wildlife Sites
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription)Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work Contractors 31000 0 31000
New Building work 0
Other Capital work 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital 0
Other costs - Capital 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 0
Total 31000 0 31000
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription)Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 25000 0 25000
Training for Staff 0
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 0
Travel for Staff 0
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 0
Equipment & materials - Activity 0
Other Costs - Activity 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity 0
Total 25000 0 25000
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription)Cost VAT Total
Recruitment 0
Publicity & Promotion 0
Evaluation 0
Other Costs 0
Full Cost Recovery 0
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 0
Total 0 0 0
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority SCC 8000
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves / Cash contribution
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time
HLF Grant request 48000
Total 56000
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 56000
Total Delivery Income 8000
HLF Delivery Grant request 48000
HLF Delivery Grant % 86

Project 3: Nature Reserves
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work Contractors 45000 10000 55000
New Building work 0
Other Capital work 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital Tools,Materials, Fuel 17665 3205 20870
Other costs - Capital Site PPE, Plant hire 4800 1100 5900
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 0
Total 67,465.00 14,305.00 81,770.00
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 23000 23000
Training for Staff 667 133 800
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 0
Travel for Staff 4000 4000
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 4360 382 4742
Equipment & materials - Activity 0
Other Costs - Activity 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity 0
Total 32,027.00 515.00 32,542.00
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment
Publicity & Promotion 1440 240 1680
Evaluation 0
Other Costs
Full Cost Recovery Management of project 14674 14674
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 20000 20000
Total 36,114.00 240.00 36,354.00
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves / Cash conotribution SWT 15000
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time SWT 20000
HLF Grant request 115666
Total 150666
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 150666
Total Delivery Income 35000
HLF Delivery Grant request 115666
HLF Delivery Grant % 77

Project 4: Midhope
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work Contractors 200500 200500
New Building work 0
Other Capital work 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital 0
Other costs - Capital 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 0 0
Total 200500 0 200500
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 17500 17500
Training for Staff 0
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 0
Travel for Staff 0
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 0
Equipment & materials - Activity 0
Other Costs - Activity 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity 0
Total 17500 0 17500
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment 0
Publicity & Promotion 1500 500 2000
Evaluation 0
Other Costs 0
Full Cost Recovery 0
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 0
Total 1500 500 2000
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate YW 150000
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves / Cash contribution
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time
HLF Grant request 70000
Total 220000
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 220000
Total Delivery Income 150000
HLF Delivery Grant request 70000
HLF Delivery Grant % 32

Project 5: Supporting Local Groups
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work Contractors 6150 1250 7400
New Building work 0
Other Capital work 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital Tools, materials, equipment 27915 5217 33132
Other costs - Capital PPE 100 100
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 1866 368 2234
Total 36031 6835 42866
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 8670 8670
Training for Staff 52 52
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 5095 505 5600
Travel for Staff 550 550
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 3568.2 339.25 3907.45
Equipment & materials - Activity PPE 22 22
Other Costs - Activity staff expenses,office equip,project overheads 889 134 1023
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity 0
Total 18846.2 978.25 19824.45
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment
Publicity & Promotion 4100 800 4900
Evaluation 0
Other Costs 0 0 0
Full Cost Recovery Project management 3551.91 114 3665.91
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 37900 37900
Total 45551.91 914 46465.91
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time 37900
HLF Grant request 71256
Total 109156
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 109156
Total Delivery Income 37900
HLF Delivery Grant request 71256
HLF Delivery Grant % 65

Project 6: Woodland Heart
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work 389700 389700
New Building work 0
Other Capital work 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital 19472 4668 24140
Other costs - Capital 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 14000 14000
Total 423172 4668 427840
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 15497 15497
Training for Staff 224 100 324
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 1946 390 2336
Travel for Staff 952 200 1152
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 1960 236 2196
Equipment & materials - Activity PPE 56 0 56
Other Costs - Activity staff expenses,office equip,project overheads 2408 541 2949
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity 0
Total 23043 1467 24510
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment
Publicity & Promotion
Evaluation
Other Costs
Full Cost Recovery Management costs 7440 576 8016
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 8000 8000
Total 15440 576 16016
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority SCC 70000
Other public sector SCC Section 106 via SVP 16800
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate YW 70000
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time 8000
HLF Grant request 303501
Total 468301
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 468366
Total Delivery Income 164800
HLF Delivery Grant request 303566
HLF Delivery Grant % 65

Project 7: Working with Water
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work Contractors 13250 3050 16300
New Building work 0
Other Capital work 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital Equipment, tools, materials 92849 18708 111557
Other costs - Capital PPE, plant hire 12200 2376 14576
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 20635 4127 24762
Total 138934 28261 167195
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 87277 87277
Training for Staff 5175 5175
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 0
Travel for Staff 6500 0 6500
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 0
Equipment & materials - Activity 0
Other Costs - Activity expenses for staff, PPE 14666 679 15345
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity
Total 113618 679 114297
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment 500 500
Publicity & Promotion 2000 400 2400
Evaluation 0 0 0
Other Costs legal fees 1000 200 1200
Full Cost Recovery Management of project 8280 8280
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 25000 25000
Total 36780 600 37380
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector EA (£5k 2018/19 £45k balance ) 50000
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves / Cash contribution
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time 25000
HLF Grant request 243872
Total 318872
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 318872
Total Delivery Income 75000
HLF Delivery Grant request 243872
HLF Delivery Grant % 76

Project 8: Supporting Species
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work Contractors 6000 1200 7200
New Building work 0 0
Other Capital work 0 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - CapitalEquipment, tools, materials 20565 4209 24774
Other costs - Capital PPE 884 884
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 8000 1600 9600
Total 35449 7009 42458
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 15600 15600
Training for Staff 0 0
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 1400 280 1680
Travel for Staff 2000 400 2400
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 4618 944 5562
Equipment & materials - Activity 750 150 900
Other Costs - Activity 0 0 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity
Total 24368 1774 26142
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment
Publicity & Promotion 0 0 0
Evaluation 0 0 0
Other Costs 0 0 0
Full Cost Recovery Management of project 7400 7400
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 18100 18100
Total 25500 0 25500
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time 18100

HLF Grant request 76000
Total 94100
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 94100
Total Delivery Income 18100
HLF Delivery Grant request 76000
HLF Delivery Grant % 81

Project 9: Hidden History
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work
New Building work
Other Capital work
Digital outputs
Equipment & materials - Capital 2150 2150
Other costs - Capital PPE 400 400
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 68000 68000
Total 70550 0 70550
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 62582 62582
Training for Staff 0
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 1000 1000
Travel for Staff 750 750
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 700 700
Equipment & materials - Activity 0
Other Costs - Activity staff expense 750 750
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity 0 0
Total 65782 0 65782
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment 1306 1306
Publicity & Promotion 8300 8300
Evaluation 0
Other Costs Project management 0 0
Full Cost Recovery 0
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 20000 20000
Total 29606 0 29606
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority SCC 60000
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves / Cash contribution
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time 20000
HLF Grant request 85938
Total 165938
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 165938
Total Delivery Income 80000
HLF Delivery Grant request 85938
HLF Delivery Grant % 52

Project 10: Heritage Highways
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work 0
New Building work 0
Other Capital work 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital 7800 1560 9360
Other costs - Capital 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 0
Total 7800 1560 9360
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 1300 1300
Training for Staff 0
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 450 450
Travel for Staff 0
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 10748 1440 12188
Equipment & materials - Activity 0
Other Costs - Activity 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity 0
Total 12498 1440 13938
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment 0
Publicity & Promotion 6060 1070 7130
Evaluation 0
Other Costs 0
Full Cost Recovery 0
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions / In kind contributions 5250 5250
Volunteer Time 21600 21600
Total 32910 1070 33980
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority 0
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions / In kind contribution 5250
Volunteer time 21600
HLF Grant request 30428
Total 57278
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 57278
Total Delivery Income 26850
HLF Delivery Grant request 30428
HLF Delivery Grant % 53

Project 11: Restoring the Lattice
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work Contractors 136525 9288 145813
New Building work
Other Capital work
Digital outputs
Equipment & materials - Capital Equipment, tools, materials 9168 782 9950
Other costs - Capital PPE 461 461
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 0
Total 146154 10070 156224
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 6684 6684
Training for Staff 2746 2746
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 0
Travel for Staff 976 270 1246
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 2301 115 2416
Equipment & materials - Activity 0
Other Costs - Activity 953 953
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity 0
Total 13659.98 385 14044.98
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment 44 44
Publicity & Promotion 3250 650 3900
Evaluation 500 100 600
Other Costs Project overheads / Legal fees 1491.02 160 1651.02
Full Cost Recovery Project management 3354 198 3552
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 7400 7400
Total 16039.02 1108 17147.02
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority SCC 1275
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations Woodland Trust /SVP 950
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves / Cash contribution
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time 7400 7400
HLF Grant request 177791
Total 187416
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 187416
Total Delivery Income 9625
HLF Delivery Grant request 177791
HLF Delivery Grant % 95

Project 12: Telling the Stories of the Landscape
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading
Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work
New Building work
Other Capital work
Digital outputs
Equipment & materials - Capital 4147 829 4976
Other costs - Capital 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 34000 4400 38400
Total 38147 5229 43376
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading
Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs
Training for Staff
Paid Training placements
Training for volunteers 1200 240 1440
Travel for Staff 0
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 0
Equipment & materials - Activity 0
Other Costs - Activity 500 100 600
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity
Total 1700 340 2040
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading
Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment
Publicity & Promotion 500 100 600
Evaluation 0
Other Costs 0
Full Cost Recovery 0
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 2500 2500
Total 3000 100 3100
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time 2500
HLF Grant request 46016
Total 48516
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 48516
Total Delivery Income 2500
HLF Delivery Grant request 46016
HLF Delivery Grant % 95

Project 13: Access - Physical
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work Contractors 175921 3846 179767
New Building work 0 0
Other Capital work 0 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital Equipment, tools, materials 42960 5508 48468
Other costs - Capital 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 0 0 0
Total 218881 9354 228235
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 6776 6776
Training for Staff 332 332
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 1040 160 1200
Travel for Staff 1162 167 1329
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 2351 188 2539
Equipment & materials - Activity 0
Other Costs - Activity 126 0 126
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity
Total 11787 515 12302
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment
Publicity & Promotion 0 0 0
Evaluation 0 0 0
Other Costs Project overheads 2490 495 2985
Full Cost Recovery Project management 8932 567 9499
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 8300 8300
Total 19722 1062 20784
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority SCC 5000
Other public sector PDNPA 38000
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate YW 80000
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves / Cash Contribution
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time 8300
HLF Grant request 129980
Total 261280
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 261321
Total Delivery Income 131300
HLF Delivery Grant request 130021
HLF Delivery Grant % 50

Project 14: Gateways (access informational)
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work Contractors 7360 1840 9200
New Building work 0 0
Other Capital work 0 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital Equipment, tools, materials 5200 1300 6500
Other costs - Capital 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 21200 3800 25000
Total 33760 6940 40700
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 0 0
Training for Staff 0 0
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 4400 1100 5500
Travel for Staff 0 0 0
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 2400 600 3000
Equipment & materials - Activity 0
Other Costs - Activity 0 0 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity
Total 6800 1700 8500
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment
Publicity & Promotion 1440 360 1800
Evaluation 0 0 0
Other Costs 0 0 0
Full Cost Recovery Project management 0
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 6000 6000
Total 7440 360 7800
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time 6000
HLF Grant request 51000
Total 57000
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 57000
Total Delivery Income 6000
HLF Delivery Grant request 51000
HLF Delivery Grant % 89

Project 15: Practical Projects and Volunteers
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property 0
Repair & Conservation work 0
New Building work 0
Other Capital work 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital Equipment, tools, materials 19400 3880 23280
Other costs - Capital PPE 500 500
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 0
Total 19900 3880 23780
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs
Training for Staff 11000 11000
Paid Training placements 73000 73000
Training for volunteers 4000 4000
Travel for Staff 11300 2000 13300
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 8120 280 8400
Equipment & materials - Activity 0 0
Other Costs - Activity PPE 1248 1248
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity 0
Total 108668 2280 110948
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment 500 500
Publicity & Promotion 2000 400 2400
Evaluation 0
Other Costs 0
Full Cost Recovery 0
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 10500 10500
Total 13000 400 13400
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time 10500
HLF Grant request 137628
Total 148128
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 148128
Total Delivery Income 10500
HLF Delivery Grant request 137628
HLF Delivery Grant % 93

Project 16: Landscape Connections
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property 0
Repair & Conservation work 0
New Building work 0
Other Capital work 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital 0
Other costs - Capital 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 0
Total 0 0 0
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 52284 52284
Training for Staff 900 900
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 400 400
Travel for Staff 4050 745 4795
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 720 720
Equipment & materials - Activity 13195 2188 15383
Other Costs - Activity 8460 745 9205
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity 0
Total 80009 3678 83687
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment 500 500
Publicity & Promotion 4000 4000
Evaluation 0
Other Costs 0
Full Cost Recovery Project management 3287.88 3287.88
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 2251 2251
Volunteer Time 4600 4600
Total 14639 0 14639
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves / Cash contribution SWT 9880
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions / In Kind contribution 2251
Volunteer time 4600
HLF Grant request 81595
Total 98326
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 98326
Total Delivery Income 16731
HLF Delivery Grant request 81595
HLF Delivery Grant % 83

Project 17: Connecting Steps
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property 0
Repair & Conservation work 0
New Building work 0
Other Capital work 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital 0
Other costs - Capital 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 0
Total 0 0 0
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 65798.1 65798.1
Training for Staff 0
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 0
Travel for Staff 5600 5600
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 500 500
Equipment & materials - Activity 15500 15500
Other Costs - Activity 0 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity 14500 14500
Total 101898.1 0 101898.1
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment 500 500
Publicity & Promotion 3750 3750
Evaluation 0
Other Costs 0
Full Cost Recovery 0
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions / In Kind contribution 2251 2251
Volunteer Time 3000 3000
Total 9501 0 9501
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions / In Kind contribution 2251
Volunteer time 3000
HLF Grant request 106148
Total 111399
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 111399
Total Delivery Income 5251
HLF Delivery Grant request 106148
HLF Delivery Grant % 95

Project 18: Art in the Landscape
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property 0
Repair & Conservation work Habitat, site work,water habitat work, dry stone walls 0 0 0
New Building work habitat creation, new planting 0
Other Capital work 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital Chipper, trailer 0
Other costs - Capital Other capital works,Interpretation, access improvments, lost way 0 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital Prof fees for above, Ecologists Archaeologist, listed building 0 0
Total 0 0 0
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs delivery team 3248.96 3248.96
Training for Staff 140 140
Paid Training placements training placements 0 0
Training for volunteers condition surveys, ecological & archaeolgical surveys 420 105 525
Travel for Staff lease & fuel 560 84 644
Travel & Expenses for volunteers travel, expenses, tools, equip , PPE 4580 750 5330
Equipment & materials - Activity Tools, materials 8192 1658 9850
Other Costs - Activity contractors,staff expenses, 1990.1 497 2487.1
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity Activity species specialist, farm advisor, artists, ESOL 14980 14980
Total 34111.06 3094 37205.06
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment Advert & expenses 0
Publicity & Promotion Events, website, disply materials, leaflets 1300 190 1490
Evaluation External consultant, report 400 0 400
Other Costs
project overheads, laptop, community grant fund, social enterprise feasiblity 1008 252 1260
Full Cost Recovery Overheads & line management, project management 5448 287 5735
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions in kind contributions 1500 1500
Volunteer Time volunteer time 7300 7300
Total 16956 729 17685
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations Soundpost 1480
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions 1500 1500
Volunteer time 7300 7300
HLF Grant request 44610
Total 54890
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 54890
Total Delivery Income 10280
HLF Delivery Grant request 44610
HLF Delivery Grant % 81

Project 19: Digital Landscape
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property 0
Repair & Conservation work 0
New Building work 0
Other Capital work 0
Digital outputs 0
Equipment & materials - Capital 0
Other costs - Capital 0
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital 0
Total 0 0 0
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs 0
Training for Staff 0
Paid Training placements 0
Training for volunteers 0
Travel for Staff 0
Travel & Expenses for volunteers 200 20 220
Equipment & materials - Activity 800 160 960
Other Costs - Activity 2700 0 2700
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity 15400 2080 17480
Total 19100 2260 21360
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment 0
Publicity & Promotion 0
Evaluation 0
Other Costs 0
Full Cost Recovery 0
Contingency 0
Inflation 0
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years) 0
Non Cash Contributions 0
Volunteer Time 500 500
Total 500 0 500
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves
Other fundraising
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time 500
HLF Grant request 21360
Total 21860
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 21860
Total Delivery Income 500
HLF Delivery Grant request 21360
HLF Delivery Grant % 98

Project 20: Community Grants
Delivery Phase Capital Costs
Cost Heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Purchase price of items or property
Repair & Conservation work
New Building work
Other Capital work
Digital outputs
Equipment & materials - Capital
Other costs - Capital
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Capital
Total 0 0 0
Delivery Phase Activity Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
New Staff costs
Training for Staff
Paid Training placements
Training for volunteers
Travel for Staff
Travel & Expenses for volunteers
Equipment & materials - Activity
Other Costs - Activity 100000 10000 110000
Professional fees relating to any of the above - Activity
Total 100000 10000 110000
Delivery Phase Other Costs
Cost heading Description (20 words per decription) Cost VAT Total
Recruitment
Publicity & Promotion
Evaluation
Other Costs
Full Cost Recovery
Contingency
Inflation
Increased management & maintenance costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer Time 15000 15000
Total 15000 0 15000
Delivery Phase Income
Source of Funding Description Secured? Value
Local Authority
Other public sector BPC & STC 36000 36000
Central Goverment
European Union
Private Donation - Indivdual
Private Donation - Trusts / Charities / Foundations
Private Donation - Corporate
Commercial / Business
Own Reserves
Other fundraising / community funding Community funding 10000 10000
Loan / Finance
Increased management & maintenace costs (max 5 years)
Non Cash Contributions
Volunteer time 15000
HLF Grant request 64000
Total 46000 125000
Delivery Phase - Financial Summary
Total Delivery Costs 125000
Total Delivery Income 61000
HLF Delivery Grant request 64000
HLF Delivery Grant % 51

References and
Bibliography

Bibliography
Author Surname, Initial Year Title Ed Location Publisher
2016 UK State of Nature Report RSPB and partners
Atlantic Geomatics 2018 Burial Ground Project https://www.atlanticgeomatics.co.uk/burial-­grounds
Ball, C., Crossley, D. and
Flavell, N.
2006 Water Power on the Sheffield Rivers 2 Sheffield South Yorkshire Industrial History Society
Bat Conservation Trust 2016 National Bat Monitoring Programme Annual Report
NBMP
Bevan, B. 2004 The Upper Derwent: 10,000 years in a Peak District Valley Stroud Tempus
Bevan, B. 2007 The Upper Derwent: 10,000 years in a Peak District Valley Stroud Tempus
http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/nbmp_annua
l_report.html
Bownes, J. S. 1991 Sheffield’s Nature Conservation strategy Sheffield
Collins J. 2016 Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice 3 Bat Conservation Trust
Guidelines
Council of Europe 2000 European Landscape Convention European Treaty Series No. 176
Daily Mail 2015 “The flooding tragedy nobody has ever heard of” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-­‐
2576850/Sheffield-­‐floods-­‐Memorial-­‐events-­begin-­‐marking-­‐150th-­‐anniversary-­‐disaster-­saw-­‐240-­‐people-­‐die-­‐new-­‐dam-­burst.html#ixzz5DUFlsEAW
DEFRA 2011 Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and
ecosystem services
London DEFRA
DEFRA 2018 Our Green Future – 25 Year Plan London DEFRA
Dry Stone Walling 2007 Dry Stone Walls and Wildlife DSWA Pennine Branch
Association
EU 1979 Birds Directive http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/le
gislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm

Author Surname, Initial Year Title Ed Location Publisher
EU 1992 Habitats Directive http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/le
gislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm
EU 2000 Water Framework Directive http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/wa
ter-­‐framework/index_en.html
Forestry Commission 2018 Adapting England's Woodlands to be more Resilient https://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-­resilience
Government office for
Science
2008 Five Ways To Wellbeing https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio
ns/five-­‐ways-­‐to-­‐mental-­‐wellbeing
Gunnel, K., Grant, G. and
Williams, C.
2012 Landscape and Urban Design for Bats and Biodiversity Bat Conservation Trust
Harrison, J
Ed, Ronskey, G. J
Intro Leader, R, E
1967 An Exact and Perfect Survey and View of the Manor of
Sheffield with Other Lands 1 (1637)
Staithes
Caithes Books
Hey, D. 2003 Historic Hallamshire Ashbourne Landmark
Hey, D. 2003 Medieval South Yorkshire Ashbourne Landmark
Hey, D. 2014 History of the Peak District Moors Barnsley Pen & Sword.
Jones, Prof M. 2013 The Making of Sheffield Sheffield Wharncliffe Press
Landuse Consultants &
AC Archaeology
Lawton, J.H., Brotherton,
P.N.M.,
Brown, V.K., Elphick, C.,
Fitter, A.H., Forshaw, J.,
Haddow, R.W., Hilborne,
S., Leafe, R.N., Mace,
G.M., Southgate,M.P.,
Sutherland, W.J.,
Tew, T.E., Varley, J., &
Wynne, G.R
Loxley Valley Design
Group
2007 Defining stone walls of historic and landscape importance Bristol Bristol@landuse.co.uk
2010 Making Space for Nature: a review of England’s wildlife
sites and ecological network.
Report to Defra.
1 http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/bi
odiversity/
documents/201009space-­‐for-­‐nature.pdf
2003 Loxley Valley Design Statement Sheffield Sheffield City Council

Author Surname, Initial Year Title Ed Location Publisher
Mills, A. D. 2007 A Dictionary of British Place Names Oxford Oxford University
Press
Mitchell-­‐Jones A. J. 2004 South Yorkshire Bat Group Habitat Suitability Models
Outputs (2015)
English Nature ISBN 1 85716 781 3
Natural England 2013 Section 41 Species -­‐ Priority Actions Needed (B2020-­‐008) http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/p
ublication/4958719460769792
Natural England 2018 Canyards Hill SSSI Citation https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.u
k/SiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=S1002667&SiteN
ame=canyards%20hill&countyCode=&respo
nsiblePerson=&SeaArea=&IFCAArea=
Natural England 2018 Little Don Stream SSSI Citation https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.u
k/SiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=S1004154&SiteN
ame=little%20don%20stream%20&countyCo
de=&responsiblePerson=&SeaArea=&IFCAAr
ea=
Natural England 2018 Stannington Ruffs SSSI Citation https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.u
k/SiteList.aspx?siteName=stannington&coun
tyCode=&responsiblePerson=&DesignationT
ype=All
Natural England 2018 Wadsley Fossil Forest SSSI Citation https://designatedsites.naturalengland.org.u
k/SiteDetail.aspx?SiteCode=S1005893&SiteN
ame=Wadsley&countyCode=&responsiblePe
rson=&SeaArea=&IFCAArea=
Natural England 2018 Natural England Strategic Direction https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s
ystem/uploads/attachment_data/file/43272
6/ne-­‐strategic-­‐direction.pdf
Routh, C. 2016 Is the management of Local Wildlife Sites affected by the Natural England

Author Surname, Initial Year Title Ed Location Publisher
urban fringe?
RSPB 2007 Peak Malpractice Update 2007 2 Huddersfield RSPB
Sheffield City Council 2016 Sheffield Landscape Character Assessment (preliminary) P Sheffield https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/dam/
sheffield/docs/planning-­‐and-­development/city-­‐wide-­‐plans-­‐and-­reports/Sheffield%20Landscape%20Characte
r%20Assessment.pdf
Sheffield City Council 2010 Green and Open Spaces Strategy Sheffield Sheffield City Council
Sheffield City Council 2010 Sheffield Flood Risk Management Strategy Sheffield City Council
Sheffield City Council 2012 Heathland HAP Sheffield https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/dam/
sheffield/docs/parks-­‐sports-­‐and-­recreation/parks-­‐countryside-­service/Heathland%20HAP.pdf
Sheffield City Council 2018 Sheffield City Biodiversity Action Plan Sheffield https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/parks-­sport-­‐recreation/biodiversity-­conservations.html
Sheffield City Council 2017 Protecting Sheffield from Flooding Sheffield http://www.floodprotectionsheffield.com/
Sheffield First Partnership 2014 State of Sheffield 2014 1 Sheffield Sheffield First Partnership
Sheffield First Partnership 2016 State of Sheffield 2016 1 Sheffield Sheffield First Partnership
Sheffield Public Rights of 2007 Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2007 -­‐ 2017
Way Group
Sheffield Waterways 2014 Sheffield City of Rivers 2 Sheffield Sheffield City Council
Strategy Group
Tudor, C. 2014 An Approach to
Landscape Character Assessment
Natural England
Watts, G. Bater, T. Eykyn, 2013 The East Peak Traditional Performance Project Final 1 Penistone Watts Energy and Environment
S
Report EPIP151
Wikepedia 2018 Great Sheffield Flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sheffiel
d_Flood
Wikepedia 2018 Peak District National Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_District

Author Surname, Initial Year Title Ed Location Publisher
Wildlife Trusts (The) 2018 What next for farming? Policy Briefing Newark The Wildlife Trusts
Yorkshire Water 2015 Blueprint for South Yorkshire Bradford Yorkshire Water
Yorkshire Water 2017 Multi Capitals Assessment at Little Don Bradford Yorkshire Water