Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Barton Bridges

Archaeological

Desk-based Assessment

Barton Bridges,

Greater Manchester

Client s: The Bridgewater Canal Company

Technical Report: Ashley Brogan

Report No:

2020/28

Site Location: The Site is bounded by the Bridgewater Canal to the east, Barton Lane to the north, Barton Road to the west and Redclyffe Road and to the south.

NGR: Centred at NGR SJ 76715 97620

Prepared for: The Bridgewater Canal Company

Document Title: Barton Bridges, Salford

Document Type: Desk-based Assessment

Report No: SA/2020/28

Version: Version 1

Author: Ashley Brogan Position: Archaeologist Date: April 2021

Checked By: Anthony Lee Signed: Position: Senior Project Manager Date: April 2021

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

Telephone: 0161 295 2144 Email: [email protected]

Disclaimer:

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

Contents

Summary 2 1. Introduction 3

2. Method Statement 7

3. The Setting 8

4. Historical Background 10

5. Gazetteer 24

6. Significance 28

7. Impact of Development 32

8. Recommendations 33

Sources 34

Acknowledgements 35

Appendix 1: Figures 36

Summary

The Bridgewater Canal Company is devising proposals for the construction of a footbridge at the Barton Aqueduct over the Manchester Ship Canal at Barton, Greater Manchester (centred on NGR SJ 76639 97685). The proposed development site, which falls within the Salford and Trafford Districts, was occupied previously by Barton Aqueduct and its associated embankment that was built by James Brindley in 1760- 61 as a key component of the Bridgewater Canal, widely recognised as the world’s first true industrial canal. In order to facilitate the planning process, the Bridgewater Canal Company commissioned Salford Archaeology to carry out an archaeological desk-based assessment of the proposed development site, which was intended to establish, as far as possible, the nature and significance of the archaeological resource. The site of the former aqueduct, a portion of which is a designated scheduled monument, lies at the heart of the Barton-upon-Irwell Conservation Area. Whilst the survival, extent and condition of any below-ground archaeological remains within the proposed development site is presently unknown, it is considered likely that the side walls of the original canal channel and their associated capping stones will survive in- situ, as is typically found along the length of the canal. It is possible that stone-built retaining walls and associated buttresses deriving from the original construction of the canal in 1760-61 may exist at depth within the earthen embankment, although it is not entirely certain that such structures were actually built or retained following extensive reconstruction of the embankment in 1822-24. The material used to infill the original canal channel in the 1890s is of little archaeological interest, and there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development site has potential to contain any other below-ground remains of archaeological interest. A fragment of a substantial wall survives extant within the proposed development site. It has been suggested previously that this formed part of the wing wall of the original Barton Aqueduct, although there does not appear to be any distinguishable features to the wall or known archival sources which clearly date it to 1760-61, and it is known that this part of the aqueduct was rebuilt at various points in the nineteenth century, especially in 1822-24. There is also a substantial stone-built retaining wall that dates to 1822-24, which is of some historic interest. Any development within the area of the scheduled monument known as the ‘Bridgewater Canal’s Barton Aqueduct embankment and retaining walls’ will require scheduled monument consent. Elsewhere within the proposed development site, due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, archaeological monitoring via a programme of archaeological watching briefs may be required during phases of work which may affect below-ground remains. However, the requirement for any further archaeological investigation in advance of, or during, development works will be decided by the Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service (GMAAS), in their capacity as archaeological advisor to Salford and Trafford Councils.

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Background The Bridgewater Canal Company are considering options for a footbridge over the Manchester Ship Canal adjacent to the Barton Swing Bridge which straddles Salford and Trafford, , Greater Manchester (referred to herein as ‘the Site’). The site was occupied previously by Barton Aqueduct and its associated embankment that was built by James Brindley in 1760-61 as a key component of the Bridgewater Canal, widely recognised as the world’s first true industrial canal. The Barton Aqueduct was hailed as a remarkable feat of engineering for its period, and was the first canal aqueduct to span a road (Barton Lane) and a large river. The aqueduct was superseded by a swing aqueduct in the 1890s (now a Grade II* listed building), necessitated by the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal, and the original structures were dismantled and the short section of canal that approached the aqueduct was infilled following the creating of a new channel that connected with the swing bridge in the 1890s. In recognition of the historic significance of the original aqueduct, the west portal was carefully dismantled and re-erected in 1894 on the north side of Barton Lane, as a commemorative memorial (now a Grade II listed building). The remainder of the site, comprising the infilled channel of the original canal atop a substantial earthen embankment, is currently dominated by scrub vegetation and is not accessible to the public. Similarly, the towpath alongside this section of the canal no longer exists, thereby precluding public access to a site of industrial-heritage interest. The desk-based study aimed to identify as far as possible the nature, extent and significance of the sub-surface archaeological resource within the Site. 1.2 Government and Local Planning Policies 1.2.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) The significance of the archaeological resource identified within this report has been assessed as recommended in the revised National Planning Policy Framework (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, revised February 2019). The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies and outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is defined by three principles: economic, social and environmental. Of the core planning principles underpinning decision making, conserving heritage assets ‘in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations’ is one. Section 16 deals specifically with the historic environment (paragraphs 184-202), and states that local planning authorities should consider: • the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

• the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring; • the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and • opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place. Paragraph 189 states that local planning authorities, when determining applications, should require the applicant to describe the significance of any affected heritage assets, including any contribution made by their setting. ‘The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation’. Paragraph 194 states that “Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of: a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional; b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional” Paragraph 197 states that the effect of a proposal on non-designated heritage assets (designated assets are covered in paragraphs 193-96) should be taken into account in determining a planning application. Paragraph 199 states that local planning authorities should require developers to record and advance understanding of any heritage assets to be lost, in a manner appropriate to their importance and impact, and to make this evidence publicly accessible. 1.2.2 Local Development Framework The NPPF outlines the need for local planning authorities to create local plans and frameworks to implement the NPPF at a local level. Salford City Council Salford City Council is currently preparing its Local Plan, although a number of policies have been saved from the Salford Unitary Development Plan which informs the Council’s decisions on planning applications (2009). This approach is encapsulated in Policy CH1-8: CH5 Archaeology and Ancient Monuments

Planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an unacceptable impact on an ancient monument, or site or feature of archaeological importance, or its setting. Where planning permission is granted for development that will affect known or suspected remains of local archaeological value, planning conditions will be imposed to secure the recording and evaluation of the remains and, if appropriate, their excavation and preservation and/or removal, prior to the commencement of the development. Reasoned justification 13.16 Archaeological remains are a finite and non-renewable resource, which are often highly fragile and vulnerable to damage and destruction. A sites and monuments record [now known as HER – Historic Environment Records] is maintained, providing information on known archaeological remains. 13.17 Wherever possible, development should be located and designed so as to avoid damage to archaeological remains, ensuring that they are preserved in situ. Where this is not possible, or appropriate, the developer will be required to make suitable provision to ensure that the archaeological information is not lost, and in many cases to secure the preservation of the remains. CH8 Local List of Buildings, Structures and Features of Architectural, Archaeological or Historical Interest The impact of development on any building, structure or feature that is identified on the council’s local list of buildings, structures and features of architectural, archaeological or historic interest will be a material planning consideration. Reasoned justification 13.23 The city council maintains a local list of around 450 buildings, structures and features that have been identified as being of value due to their contribution to the local street scene or their local historical association. Whilst these buildings, structures and features do not enjoy the protection of statutory listing, which is the responsibility of English Heritage, nevertheless the buildings are of some local value. Accordingly, any material impact that a proposed development might have upon a building, structure or feature identified on the local list will be taken into account as part of the development control process. Trafford Council Trafford Council’s Core Strategy was adopted in January 2012 and Trafford Council’s approach to the archaeological resource within the borough is outlined in Section 21 R1 – Historic Environment, which states: “R1.6 Accordingly developers will be required, where appropriate, to demonstrate how their development will protect, preserve and enhance the following heritage assets including their wider settings: • Listed buildings; • Buildings and structures identified on a local list which make a significant contribution to the townscape by reason of their architectural or historic interest; • Listed buildings and locally significant historic buildings and structures, identified on a local list, which are at risk;

• Sites included on the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest; • Scheduled Monuments; • Sites of archaeological significance; • Other sites of significant historic designed landscapes identified from the Trafford Urban Historic Landscape Characterisation Report on a local list; and • The character of prominent skylines, particularly those running from Dunham New Park to Oldfield Road, Altrincham and from the A56 through Bowdon and any other important skylines, identified through the Conservation Appraisals.” R1.8 “In areas of archaeological importance developers will be required to: • Identify the presence or absence of remains of archaeological significance and take into account the potential for new finds; and • Set out a framework for dealing with investigation, recording and preservation of any remains.” Furthermore, Trafford Council’s Strategic Objective (SO8) states the need “To protect and enhance areas of historic landscape character and archaeological importance”.

2. Method Statement

The assessment considers the significance of any buried archaeological remains that may potentially exist within the Site, and comprises a desk-based study and site inspection. The production of the assessment followed the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA) standard and guidance for undertaking archaeological desk- based assessments (Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-based Assessment, 2017). 2.1 Research Sources The desk-based assessment made use of the following sources: • Greater Manchester Historic Environment Record (HER); • Published and unpublished cartographic, documentary and photographic sources; • Salford Local History Library and Trafford Local Studies Centre • University of Salford Archives and Special Collections • The National Heritage List for England; • Salford Archaeology’s extensive library of archaeological work carried out in the vicinity of the Site. The aim of the research was to provide the relevant historical and archaeological background relating to the development of the Site. The available sequence of historical mapping was the principal source of information, as this provides evidence for the development of the Site since the mid-eighteenth century. 2.2 The Document Chapter 4 presents the historical and archaeological evidence for the Site. A gazetteer (Chapter 5) is presented of heritage assets and sites of potential archaeological interest identified within the Site and this information, along with the map regression (Figs 2-9), is used to assess the significance of the remains (Chapter 6) and impact of the proposed development (Chapter 7). A mitigation strategy is outlined in Chapter 8, based on the assessment presented in the previous chapters.

3. The Setting

3.1 Location The Site is bounded by the Bridgewater Canal to the east, Barton Lane to the north, Barton Road to the west and Redclyffe Road and to the south. (centred on NGR SJ 76715 97620).

Plate 1: Study area boundary superimposed on a recent satellite view, looking north

3.2 Geology The solid geology of the area comprises the Upper Pennine Coal Measures Formation, consisting mainly of mudstone, siltstone and sandstone. The overlying drift geology consists of glacial till with areas of sand and gravel (Ordnance Survey Geological Survey 1970).

3.3 Designations The Site is located within the Barton-upon-Irwell Conservation Area, which is centred on the Barton Swing Aqueduct that was constructed between 1890 and 1894 to replace Brindley's stone aqueduct of 1760-61 carrying the Bridgewater Canal across the River Irwell. The Conservation Area was extended in 1987 to include an additional strip of land to the north of the Manchester Ship Canal and west of the swing bridges, with a further amendment in 2007 that resulted in the inclusion of the bowling green adjacent to the Rock House Hotel.

The Site contains the Scheduled Monument known as the “Bridgewater Canal’s Barton Aqueduct embankment and retaining walls” (Fig. 10) and the grade II listed Barton Lane Aqueduct Portal. The grade II* listed Barton Bridge, Aqueduct and Control Tower and another two designated heritage assets within close proximity to the Site. These comprise the grade I listed Church of All Saints and the associated grade II listed All Saints Presbytery. In addition, there are also several non-designated heritage assets in the vicinity that are recorded on the Greater Manchester Historic Environment (HER); these are listed in Table 1.

List Entry No Description Grade NGR Designated Heritage Assets 1470478 Bridgewater Canal’s Barton Scheduled SJ 76644 97677 Aqueduct embankment and Monument retaining walls 1356522 Barton Bridge, Aqueduct and II* SJ 76642 97581 Control Tower 1462661 Barton Lane Aqueduct Portal II SJ 76590 97719 1067879 Church of All Saints I SJ 76668 97467 1162889 All Saints Presbytery II SJ 76690 97454 Non-Designated Heritage Assets 6749.1.0 Manse, 71, Barton Road - SJ 76550 97790 6800.1.0 Slaughter House (Barton Bridge - SJ 76530 97710 Motors) 6803.1.0 Post Ofﬁce, Barton - SJ 76560 97690 6805.1.0 92, Barton Road - SJ 76580 97660 6818.1.0 77, Barton Road - SJ 76550 97740 6860.1.0 Templeman Terrace - SJ 76670 97750 7257.1.0 Co-op on Barton Road - SJ 76550 97760

Table 1: Designated and non-designated heritage sites within 250m radius of the Site

4. Historical Background

The following section provides a framework to the present study, working chronologically through the periods listed below (Table 2). Key sites are summarised in the Gazetteer of Sites (Section 6, below).

Period Date Range Prehistoric Palaeolithic Pre-10,000 BC Mesolithic 10,000 – 3500 BC Neolithic 3500 – 2300 BC Bronze Age 2300 BC – 700 BC Iron Age 700 BC – AD 43 Romano-British AD 43 – AD 410 Early Medieval AD 410 – AD 1066 Late Medieval AD 1066 – AD 1540 Post-medieval AD 1540 – c 1750 Industrial Period c AD1750 – 1914 Modern Post-1914 Table 2: Summary of British archaeological periods and date ranges 4.1 Prehistoric Period 4.1.1 Archaeological Evidence During the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal, several Bronze Age and Neolithic finds were recovered along the course of the River Irwell. A socketed Bronze Age spearhead was also found in the area of the Manchester Ship Canal, however, the precise location of the spearhead was not recorded (GMAU 1992, 3). Within the wider landscape was the Late Iron Age/ Romano-British bivallate enclosure at Great Woolden Hall on the Glaze Brook. The site of the enclosure overlooked the brook and was located on the fringe of Chat Moss. Excavations of the site revealed hut circles and a large assemblage of Iron Age pottery (ibid.). It is reasonable to suggest that the Barton-upon-Irwell area may have been conducive for late prehistoric settlement on account of the natural topography, geology, and its waterside location. However, there is no known evidence for prehistoric activity within the vicinity of the Site. 4.1.2 Archaeological Potential The potential for archaeological remains of a prehistoric date to survive within the Site is considered to be low due to the extensive later development across the Site. 4.2 Romano-British Period 4.2.1 Archaeological Evidence The first military occupation of Manchester was established during the governorship of Agricola (AD 77-84), and commenced with a five-acre wooden fort, known as

Mamucium (Bruton 1909). The fort underwent several phases of development subsequently, the earlier defences being deconstructed and improved. The military complex evolved in response to the on-going military campaigns, from a purely defensive site to an established supply depot, essential to the expansion and consolidation of control in the region. The maturation of the military complex can be seen in the growing body of evidence for a military annexe, occupying an area to the north and east of the fort (Arrowsmith 2016, 9-12). Evidence pertaining to this annexe is relatively scant and thus the exact nature of early settlement is unclear. As this military complex developed, a grid of roads was laid out. Roads from the fort linked Manchester with Buxton to the south-east, Chester to the south, Wigan to the north-west, Ribchester to the north, and Castleshaw and York to the north-east. The settlement was well connected in terms of trade and consequently lasted until the late third century AD. The road from Manchester to Wigan has been detected at Chorlton Fold, from which the road passes through Broadoak Park Golf Course and below Drywood Hall. The road is then identified at Worsley Church and vicarage, then running north-west past the modern powerhouse and through Rands Clough Wood and Shaw Brook. The road continues to Ellenbrook, across Mosley Common, and then bypasses the corner of Sheep Lane before continuing to Cleworth Hall. 4.2.2 Archaeological Potential The Roman Road from Manchester to Wigan passes through Barton on its course to Worsley. However, the projected route of this road is some distance away, and there is no potential for any Roman remains to exist within the Site.

4.3 Medieval Period 4.3.1 Historical and Archaeological Evidence There is very little archaeological evidence in the region as a whole that represents the period between the end of the Roman occupation and the Norman Conquest of 1066. The area around Manchester came under the control of several kingdoms during this period. In AD 620, Edwin occupied Manchester, and it may have been at this time that settlement in the town was established around the Cathedral (Farrer and Brownbill 1908). In AD 919, the Anglo-Saxon king Edward the Elder established a fortified base, or burh, at Manchester, which was then part of Viking Northumbria. It has been suggested that the burh lay within the area around the Cathedral, which had become a focus for settlement by the late eleventh century. The site occupied presently by Chetham’s School is thought to have been the site of a castle founded by Manchester’s Norman barons. It has been suggested that some place names within Worsley derive from the Anglo- Saxon Period (GMAU 1990, 5). An extract from the Great Rolls of the Exchequer 1195- 96 refers to a grant of land to Richard, second Lord of Worsley, includes the name ‘Leysing’, which suggests an Anglo-Saxon origin. Similarly, early spellings of the name Worsley, such as Wyrkedele and Werkesleia, indicate Anglo-Saxon origins (Hart-Davis

1914, 5-6), whilst Barton can be translated from Old English beretün or baer-tün, meaning a barley farm. Eccles Church is believed to date to the fifth century, however, the present structure is of a late medieval date. An Anglo-Saxon cross shaft was also found at Barton during the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal along with two dug out canoes, one of which was dated to the eleventh century (GMAU 1992, 3). Following the Norman Conquest, William I assigned most of the land between the Ribble and Mersey rivers to Roger of Poitou, who retained the manor of Salford demesne (Tupling 1962, 116), but divided his other newly acquired land into several fiefdoms (Kidd 1996, 13). Barton was the largest manor within the district of Salford and in the twelfth century was held by the Barton family. In the latter half of the thirteenth century Barton passed through other families until the Booth family took it over in 1292, with whom it remained for the next 300 years. During this period, Barton would have for the most part been thickly wooded and marshy. Some clearance was attempted by individual families who had built cottages on the edge of reclaimed land. Barton would have been relatively unpopulated, with just a small number of cottages for craftsmen and serfs around the local manor house. 4.3.2 Archaeological Potential The potential of recovering archaeological remains dating to this period from the Site is considered to be low. 4.4 Post-medieval and Industrial Period 4.4.1 Historical Setting The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries brought an increase in population, but the village of Barton did not expand across the River Irwell partly because the land was part of the park attached to Trafford Hall. The river could be crossed by means of a ford and it was not until the early eighteenth century that a bridge was constructed which survived until 1745, when it was demolished to impede the southerly progress of the Jacobite army. The bridge was replaced with a wooden footbridge in 1761 and later by a road bridge. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Salford’s reputation as an industrial borough grew due to its supply of coal, which was a crucial ingredient for enabling the industrialization of the region. The production of coal became one of the Worsley Estate’s main forms of income. Delivery of the coal to Manchester, however, was costly, as the only means of transport was by sending pack animals on toll roads. The estate came into the possession of Francis Egerton, the 3rd Duke of Bridgewater, in 1748. Francis wanted to improve the efficiency of delivering coal to Manchester, which had become an issue across the borough of Salford due to the poor conditions of roads to Manchester and the expense of transport (Salford City Council 2007, 11). The demand for coal in Manchester was also rapidly expanding as it was vital in the use of steam power in the textile mills. Francis’ father had already explored the possibility of constructing a waterway from Worsley to the River Mersey, to deliver coal to Manchester via the Mersey/Irwell Navigation. The collaboration between Francis Egerton, the 3rd Duke of Bridgewater, John Gilbert, the estate manager, and James Brindley, an engineer and millwright, began the

© SA: Barton Bridges, Greater Manchester: Archaeological Desk-based Assessment 12 transport revolution of the eighteenth century. Moving goods by water, such as coal, was much less expensive than by road. Sections of rivers which were dredged and maintained were called river navigations. The Mersey & Irwell Navigation in Manchester brought goods into the docks at Quay Street. Rivers, however, were sometimes unreliable, as they could flood, run dry, or silt up, and their use was limited to riverside areas. The solution for this problem was the construction of artificial cut canals, of which the Duke of Bridgewater’s canal was the first true industrial canal in the country. Construction of the canal began in 1759. The earliest map of the area dates to 1782, which shows the settlement in Barton to have been concentrated along the north bank of the River Irwell following Peel Green Road and Barton Lane, with further buildings along Trafford Road (then Back Lane) and Barton Road (Plate 2). The Bridgewater Canal and the adjacent road crossing of the river is shown. The present A57 between Manchester and Warrington was turnpiked in 1752 and followed a route along the flood plain gravels between the River Irwell and surrounding moss lands. The creation of this road stimulated the development of linear settlements along its route, including Eccles, Patricroft and Barton.

Plate 2: Extract from a map of 1782, showing the extent of Barton and the line of the Bridgewater Canal across the Mersey & Irwell Navigation 4.5 The Bridgewater Canal

Francis Egerton succeeded to the title of the 3rd Duke of Bridgewater in 1748 at the age of 12, following the premature death of his older siblings. Initially, Francis was placed under the guardianship of the Duke of Bedford, Samuel Egerton, and the Earl of Gower. These guardians arranged for Francis to be educated at Eton, and subsequently sent him on a ‘Grand Tour of Europe’ under the guidance of a classical scholar. This included a visit to the Canal du Midi in France, which may have provided some inspiration to the young duke when later considering the viability of a canal in Worsley. In his role of a guardian, the Earl of Gower secured the appointment of Thomas Gilbert to supervise Francis Egerton’s interests. He deferred the responsibility of managing the Worsley estate to his younger brother and trained engineer, John Gilbert, who took up the post in 1753. He moved to Worsley and took up residence at Worsley Old Hall when Francis Egerton became legally responsible for the estates in 1757. John Gilbert immediately set about studying the coal mines and implementing improvements, which included repairs to the drainage sough and experimentation with steam-powered pumps. He also studied the viability of building a canal from Worsley to Manchester, and extending it into the underground workings in order to provide an economic method of transporting the coal whilst also creating a supplementary means of drainage at a deeper level to John Massey’s sough of 1724. John Gilbert also carried out an initial survey of the route of the canal from Worsley towards Manchester, with a connection to the Mersey & Irwell Navigation at Hollin Ferry. This enabled a bill to be presented to parliament, and an Act to build the canal along the 82ft contour from Worsley to Salford received Royal Assent in March 1759, representing the genesis the world’s first true industrial canal. In the same year, James Brindley was engaged as a consulting engineer on the project, having recently designed an innovative pumping system that drained the Wet Earth Colliery on the Clifton estate. The proposed route of the canal was amended shortly after Brindley’s appointment, and a second Act was passed in 1760 that carried the canal over the River Irwell on an aqueduct at Barton, and extended it to Castlefield in Manchester. This new route would increase competition with the Mersey & Irwell Navigation and make future canal branches easier to construct. The Bridgewater Canal opened to commercial traffic from Worsley to Stretford on the 17 July 1761. In the same year, Brindley and his assistant, Hugh Oldham, surveyed the route of an extension of the canal westwards to Runcorn, and a connection with the Mersey Estuary via a flight of ten locks. This secured parliamentary approval, and a third Act was passed in March 1762. The extension to Castlefield in Manchester was completed in 1764, and the canal was fully opened to the River Mersey at Runcorn in 1776. Further Acts allowed the Bridgewater Canal to connect with the Trent & Mersey Canal at Preston Brook in 1766, and an extension from Worsley to Pennington, near Leigh, to join the Leeds & Liverpool Canal opened in 1799. 4.6 Development of the Aqueduct A Bill to construct the canal ‘from or near Worsley Mill, over the river Irwell, to the town of Manchester…and to or near Longford Bridge, in the township of Stretford’ was submitted to Parliament in November 1760’. This represented a revision of the original

Bill, abandoning the intended route into Salford and instead proposed crossing the Irwell via an aqueduct at Barton, then continuing towards Stretford and Manchester. The modified route was still to follow the 82-foot contour, as proposed originally, but with a three-arch masonry aqueduct to carry the waterway over the river at Barton. Assent to an Act of Parliament for the aqueduct was obtained in March 1760. The location proposed for the new aqueduct was between the existing stone bridge across the River Irwell and the lock and weir on the Mersey & Irwell Navigation, about 40 yards upstream of the bridge (Plate 3).

Plate 3: Bridewater Canal’s Barton Aqueduct embankment and retaining walls scheduled monument boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey 6”: 1 mile map of 1848 (surveyed in 1845), showing the position of the Barton Aqueduct relative to Barton Bridge and the lock and weir on the Mersey & Irwell Navigation

The Barton Aqueduct consisted of several component parts originally: approach embankments, a single-arched aqueduct carrying the canal over Barton Lane, and a three-arched aqueduct (200 yards long and 12 yards wide (182.88m x 10.97m)) carrying the canal over the River Irwell / Mersey & Irwell Navigation at a height of 39 feet (11.89m). The approach embankment on the Eccles bank was stone-faced throughout, and extended to a distance of approximately 150 yards (137.16m); the embankment continued some way on the Trafford side of the River Irwell, with yet another aqueduct spanning a road to the De Trafford estate and corn mill. The stone- revetted canal embedded in the embankment used a novel design of a walled channel, waterproofed with puddled-clay to maintain watertight integrity, supported by substantial stone retaining walls. The aqueduct carrying the canal over Barton Lane was the first canal aqueduct over a public road. The three-arch aqueduct over the river had to comply with the requirements of the existing river Navigation regarding arch width, height, and had to

© SA: Barton Bridges, Greater Manchester: Archaeological Desk-based Assessment 15 accommodate a towpath on the Eccles side. Quantities of the stone came from the quarry that formed the Delph at Worsley, other material was delivered via the Mersey & Irwell Navigation. The construction of the aqueduct took just over one year to complete and, notwithstanding an initial problem with the integrity of the water channel, the first barge was towed across on its journey to Manchester on 17 July 1761. Contemporary illustrations depict the aqueduct as having flat-faced pillars (Plate 4), whilst late nineteenth-century photographs show that these had been modified to pillars with cutwaters (Plate 5). This alteration was implemented in 1822-24, when the aqueduct and the adjoining embankment were virtually reconstructed under the supervision of WR Bradshaw. The rationale for the improvements were driven, at least in part, by a need to redress issues of flooding that stemmed from the aqueduct’s location adjacent to the road bridge. During these works, the aqueduct was widened, strengthened, and re-faced as aggrandisement in the classical style, using ashlar sandstone blocks from the quarry at Worsley Delph.

1 2 3

Key 1 – Barton Lane 2 – Barton Aqueduct 3 – Barton Road

Plate 4: Barton Aqueduct in the 1760s The original course of the canal and the position of the Barton Aqueduct is shown on several eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century maps (eg Plate 2), although the first accurate and detailed plan is provided by the Ordnance Survey first edition 6”:1 mile map of 1848 (Plate 3). This shows the aqueduct with its attendant towpath crossing the centre of the Site, but does indicate any other canal-related infrastructure. The next edition of Ordnance Survey mapping, surveyed in the late 1880s and published in 1896 shows a similar layout, but also captures the retaining wall at the foot of the embankment along the western edge of the Site boundary (Figure 3). The towpath is again shown on the west side of the canal, but no additional infrastructure is marked. The Bridgewater Canal Company bought the Mersey & Irwell Navigation in 1885 and, in turn, it was bought-out by the Manchester Ship Canal Company to allow the unimpeded passage of modern ocean-going ships to Salford. These changes resulted in the construction of the Barton hydraulic swing bridge and control tower (now a Grade

II* listed building), which necessitated the re-alignment of the Bridgewater Canal and the demolition in 1893 of Brindley’s three-span Barton Aqueduct, and the Barton Lane Aqueduct. The embankment on the eastern (Trafford) side of the abandoned section was widened to allow for canal channel, and the north-western end of the abandoned section (within the Site) was blanked-off by a brick retaining wall. The historic significance of the Barton Lane Aqueduct was recognised at the time; the west portal was carefully dismantled and re-erected in 1894 on the north side of Barton Lane, as a commemorative memorial, set into a blue engineering brick retaining wall, on the northern side of Barton Lane (now a Grade II listed building). A photograph taken in the early 1890s captures the aqueduct immediately prior to its demolition (Plate 5). This shows a barge in transit, demonstrating that the aqueduct was still in commercial use, and a post-and-rail fence along the top of the aqueduct on its eastern side, on the opposite bank to the towpath. Numerous people, perhaps employees of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, are shown against the post-and- rail fence.

Plate 5: Barton Aqueduct in the early 1890s, looking upstream (Peel Archives MSC50) The next edition of Ordnance Survey mapping, published in 1908, shows the new course of the canal and the Barton Swing Bridge, whilst the original course of the canal as it crossed the Site had evidently been infilled (Figure 4). The new retaining wall along Barton Lane had been built, effectively blocking off the former course of the canal. No structures or canal-related infrastructure are shown within the boundary of the Site, apart from the retaining wall at the foot of the embankment and a mooring post on the north bank of the Manchester Ship Canal. The same layout is shown on the next edition of Ordnance Survey mapping, published in 1929 (Figure 5). The only slight difference is the addition of a short wall, aligned

© SA: Barton Bridges, Greater Manchester: Archaeological Desk-based Assessment 17 north-west/south-east along the infilled canal channel in the south-east corner of the Site. The rationale for this wall is uncertain, although it is similarly shown on the next edition of Ordnance Survey mapping that was published in 1937 (Figure 6). The Site is again shown as devoid of any structures on the Ordnance Survey 1:1250 map of 1954, except for the retaining wall at the foot of the embankment and the section of wall in the south-east corner (Figure 7). A block of public lavatories built on the south side of Barton Lane, immediately beyond the north-western corner of the Site boundary, represents the only noticeable change in the immediate vicinity. An identical layout is captured on the subsequent editions of Ordnance Survey mapping, published in 1970 (Figure 8) and 1981 (Figure 9). 4.7 Development of the Site The development of the Site can be traced reasonably well from the available historic mapping. The first historic map to show the Site at a useful scale is the map of 1782, which shows the extent of Barton and the line of the Bridgewater Canal across the Mersey & Irwell Navigation (Plate 6). Barton Mills are shown on the map to the east of the Barton Aqueduct and a series of buildings, possibly houses, are shown along Barton Lane and to the west of Barton Mills at Chapel Place. The Ordnance Survey map of 1848 shows the Site in more detail. The buildings shown on the 1782 map to the west of Barton Mills appear to have been replaced by larger buildings and houses had been constructed along Chapel Place. The name ‘Chapel Place’, likely derived from the Roman Catholic Chapel located to the south of the Site. St Catherine’s Church is also shown on the 1848 OS map, located to the west of the Site. To the north of the Barton Aqueduct was Barton Lane, a culvert and the Wesleyan Chapel (Plate 7; Fig. 3). The chapel was located to the north of the Site boundary. A row of three terraced houses are shown along Barton Road on the 1848 OS map.

Plate 6: Extract from a map of 1782, showing the extent of Barton and the line of the Bridgewater Canal across the Mersey & Irwell Navigation

Plate 7: Site boundary superimposed onto an extract from the 1848 OS map By the end of the nineteenth century, the corn mill known as Barton Mills was demolished, with only the associated weir shown on the Ordnance Survey map of 1896 (Fig. 4). The building to the west of Barton Mills, located between Barton Bridge and Barton Aqueduct, had also been demolished by 1896. Within the southern extent of the Site, rows of terraced houses had been constructed along Redclyffe Road, which bounds to the Site to the southwest. The Roman Catholic Chapel located to the south of the Site was demolished by 1896 and the All Saints R. C. Church had been constructed at Redclyffe Road, located to the west of the Site. The row of three houses at Barton Road are shown in more detail on the 1896 OS map, and by 1908, one of the houses was marked with a benchmark (Plate 8; Fig. 5). The Ordnance Survey map of 1908 shows the new line of the Barton Aqueduct after it was rebuilt. The valve house is shown in the centre of the canal and various landing stages are shown along the banks of the canal. The map also shows that houses at Barton Lane, to the west of the canal, had been demolished.

Plate 8: Site boundary superimposed onto an extract from the 1908 OS map During the early twentieth century, little development is recorded on the available mapping showing the Site, with the few changes including two houses constructed between the Barton Aqueduct and Chapel Place (Plate 9; Figs 6 and 7). The graveyard of All Saints Church was first labelled on the Ordnance Survey map of 1929, which was located to the west of the church building and school.

Plate 9: Site boundary superimposed onto an extract from the 1929 OS map Aerial photographs taken in 1947 show that the houses of Chapel Place had been demolished by the mid-twentieth century (Plates 10 and 11). The photos also show the change in the surrounding landscape from a predominately rural area in the late- eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries to a busier industrial landscape by the mid- twentieth century. The vacant land of Chapel Place is shown on the Ordnance Survey map of 1955 and 1970 (Plate 12; Figs 8 and 9). Some warehouses can be seen in the northern area of the Site on the 1970 OS map, however, elsewhere within the Site remained vacant in the later twentieth century.

Plate 10: Photograph of Barton Swing Aqueduct, looking south, 1947

Plate 11: Photograph of Barton Swing Aqueduct, Barton Upon Irwell, looking east, 1947

Plate 12: Site boundary superimposed onto an extract from the 1955 OS map

5. Gazetteer of Sites

The following gazetteer entries summarise the sites of potential archaeological interest within the Site. The identification of these sites is drawn primarily from the historic map regression analysis, and their location is shown on Figure 11. Gazetteer No 01 Site Name Bridgewater Canal Designation Scheduled Monument Site Type Canal (site of) Period Mid-eighteenth century NGR SJ 76613 97726 – 76674 97647 Source OS mapping; Bridgewater Estate Archives Description An infilled section of the original course of the Bridgewater Canal on its approach across the embankment to the former Barton Aqueduct across the River Irwell / Mersey & Irwell Navigation / Manchester Ship Canal. The canal channel is approximately 4.5m wide, and is likely to have been bounded on each side by masonry walls, with the base of the channel formed of puddled clay. This section of canal was abandoned in 1894, when Barton Aqueduct was replaced by Barton Swing Bridge and was infilled. Assessment The course of the original canal crosses the centre of the Site. Any structural remains that survive in-situ, likely limited to the stone walls lining the canal channel and their associated capping stones, would probably derive from the mid-eighteenth-century aqueduct and would thus be of archaeological interest and is part of the Bridgewater Canal’s Barton Aqueduct Scheduled Monument.

Gazetteer No 02 Site Name Bridgewater Canal Embankment Site Type Scheduled Monument Period Mid-eighteenth century NGR SJ 76613 97717 Source OS mapping; Bridgewater Estate Archives Description An earthen embankment that formed a key components of the mid- eighteenth -century canal on its approach to the Barton Aqueduct. The embankment was subject to several repair episodes during the nineteenth century, particularly in 1822-24 when it was widened. Assessment The surface of the embankment has been landscaped, which will have removed any eighteenth-century features, including the towpath surface, although may retain the remains of structures associated with its construction, such as retaining walls and buttresses.

Gazetteer No 03 Site Name Bridgewater Canal Retaining Wall Designation Scheduled Monument Site Type Canal retaining wall Period Early nineteenth century NGR SJ 76610 97698 – SJ 76656 97643 Source OS mapping; Bridgewater Estate Archives Description A substantial battered stone retaining wall at the foot of the canal embankment that was constructed in 1822-24. It comprises large ashlar sandstone blocks, many of which retain well-defined masons' marks. Abuts a surviving fragment of a wing wall to the original Barton Aqueduct (GE 04). Assessment The retaining wall survives in-situ and is part of the Bridgewater Canal’s Barton Aqueduct Scheduled Monument.

Gazetteer No 04 Site Name Bridgewater Canal Aqueduct Wing Wall Designation Scheduled Monument Site Type Wing wall Period Mid-eighteenth century NGR SJ 76659 97639 Source OS mapping; Bridgewater Estate Archives Description A fragment of a substantial wall survives extant. It has been suggested previously that this formed part of the wing wall of the original Barton Aqueduct, although there does not appear to be any distinguishable features to the wall or known archival sources which clearly date it to 1760- 61, and it is known that this part of the aqueduct was rebuilt at various points in the nineteenth century but principally in 1822-24. There is also a substantial stone-built retaining wall that dates to 1822-24. This wall comprises 15 courses of canted graduated masonry, and projects some 3.5m from the line of the retaining wall. The south-eastern side of the wing wall has been re-built in random rubble. A 5.10m section of the wall is built of coursed roughly tooled sandstone, with a recessed stone platform housing a stone mooring bollard, which is protected by a low wall with steeply feathered capping. Assessment The surviving fragment of the wing wall occupies the south-western corner of the Site and is part of the Bridgewater Canal’s Barton Aqueduct Scheduled Monument.

Gazetteer No 05 Site Name Bridgewater Canal Retaining Wall Site Type Scheduled Monument Period Twentieth century NGR SJ 76666 97661 – 76679 97645 Source OS mapping Description A retaining wall cut into the original earthen embankment (GE 02) and lying parallel and adjacent to the late nineteenth-century course of the canal. The wall is first shown on the Ordnance Survey map of 1929. It survives extant, and forms the side wall for a later flight of access steps to the top of the embankment. Assessment The retaining wall occupies the south-eastern part of the Site and is part of the Bridgewater Canal’s Barton Aqueduct Scheduled Monument.

Gazetteer No 06 Site Name Houses of Chapel Place (site of) Designation Non-designated heritage asset Site Type Dwelling houses Period Early nineteenth century NGR SJ 76740 97515 Source OS mapping Description Houses are shown fronting Chapel Place on the 1848 OS map. The houses were demolished in the twentieth century. Assessment Remains of the houses may survive within the Site boundary, however, any remains would be of little archaeological interest.

Gazetteer No 07 Site Name Structures to the west of Barton Aqueduct (site of) Designation Non-designated heritage asset Site Type Structures Period Late eighteenth century NGR SJ 76701 97570 Source OS mapping Description Structures were shown on the map of 1782 between the Barton Aqueduct and Barton Bridge. Assessment The structures were demolished in the nineteenth century and remains of the structures were likely demolished during the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal.

Gazetteer No 08 Site Name Brick Kiln Field (site of) HER 7720.1.0 Designation Non-designated heritage asset Site Type Possible brick kiln Period Eighteenth century NGR SJ 7685 9761 Source HER Description Brick kiln fields were formerly located to the south of the Manchester Ship Canal, nearby the Corn Mill. Assessment The brick fields were partly built over during the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal.

Gazetteer No 09 Site Name Terraced houses at Barton Road (site of) Designation Non-designated heritage asset Site Type Dwelling houses Period Nineteenth century NGR SJ 76574 97728 Source OS mapping Description Houses are shown on the nineteenth-century OS maps at Barton Road. The houses appear to be a row of three terraced houses. Demolished by mid-twentieth century. Assessment Remains of the houses may survive within the Site boundary, however, any remains would be of little archaeological interest.

6. Significance

6.1 The Policy Context of Heritage Assets The archaeological resource of an area can encompass a range of assets, including below-ground remains, earthworks, and standing buildings and other structures. Some of these remains may have statutory protection, such as Scheduled Monuments or listed buildings. Others do not, but may nevertheless be of archaeological significance. Under both national and local planning policy, as outlined below, both statutory and non-statutory remains are to be considered within the planning process. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policy and framework for England, and how these are expected to be implemented. The NPPF places particular emphasis on assessing the development proposals in line with an up-to-date local plan. Consequently, Salford City Council is currently preparing its Local Plan, although a number of policies have been saved from the Salford Unitary Development Plan which informs the Council’s decisions on planning applications (2009). The Salford Unitary Development Plan (2009) was consulted as the key Development Plan Document, with particular reference to Policy CH1-8, specifically CH5 and CH8. In determining planning applications, local planning authorities must be able to understand the significance of any heritage assets affected by a proposed development in order to assess its impact. This enables the conservation of heritage assets in a manner suitable to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations, or else they can be recorded and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence publicly accessible.

7.2 Assessment Methodology and Significance Criteria An accepted methodology for assessing archaeological significance is the Secretary of State’s criteria for the scheduling of ancient monuments, outlined in Annex 1 of Scheduled Monuments: identifying, protecting, conserving and investigating nationally important archaeological sites under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (DCMS March 2013). These criteria have all been utilised in this assessment and are listed below: • Period • Rarity • Documentation • Group Value • Survival/Condition • Fragility/Vulnerability • Diversity • Potential

6.3 Baseline Significance Conditions 6.3.1 Period The Site was developed in the mid-eighteenth century as part of the Bridgewater Canal, the world’s first arterial canal. This development comprised the construction of a substantial earthen embankment between stone-built aqueducts that carried the Bridgewater Canal over Barton Lane and the River Irwell / Mersey & Irwell Navigation. Surviving components of the original canal infrastructure include the infilled canal channel, and potentially the masonry walls lining each side of the channel and their associated capping stones (GE 01), the earthen embankment (GE 02) that was similarly constructed in 1760-61 but remodelled and extended in the 1820s, and the vestiges of a wing wall associated with the aqueduct across the River Irwell (GE 04). A substantial retaining wall at the foot of the earthen embankment (GE 03) dates to the 1820s, and represents an historically important episode of reconstruction work. A later section of retaining wall (GE 05) that is cut into the canal embankment dates to the twentieth century, and is not considered to be of any archaeological significance. The archaeological interest in the Site is thus limited to the period spanning the mid- eighteenth to mid-nineteenth centuries; there is no potential for any earlier archaeological remains.

6.3.2 Rarity Physical remains of elements of the original mid-eighteenth-century canal infrastructure will hold some rarity value. This may include the surviving fragment of the wing wall (GE 04) to Barton Aqueduct, although there does not appear to be any strong evidence to support that this wing wall is contemporary with the original Barton Aqueduct. The earthen embankment (GE 02) is a feature of the local landscape, but it does not necessarily have a high archaeological rarity value as other examples exist along the length of the Bridgewater Canal. Similarly, whilst any stone walls that lined the sides of the infilled canal channel (GE 03) that survive in-situ below ground will be of archaeological interest, they would not have a rarity value as similar materials will have been employed in the construction of the rest of the canal. The substantial retaining wall at the foot of the embankment is an impressive structure of historic interest, although it does not have a particularly high rarity value, as several embankments with associated retaining walls survive along the course of the Bridgewater Canal, with a fine example surviving at Little Bollington. The material infilling the original canal channel does not have a rarity value.

6.3.3 Documentation The historical development of the Site from the mid-eighteenth century can be traced reasonably well from cartographic and other primary sources. The early development and history of the Bridgewater Canal has been the subject of numerous studies, cumulatively generating a wealth of research material that is available publicly. Further documentary research and a comprehensive site inspection would

© SA: Barton Bridges, Greater Manchester: Archaeological Desk-based Assessment 29 undoubtedly furnish additional evidence, although this is unlikely to alter the outline and conclusions presented in this assessment.

6.3.4 Group Value The archaeological interest in the Site is associated with the Bridgewater Canal and, specifically, the infrastructure that was required to carry the world’s first industrial canal across the River Irwell / Mersey & Irwell Navigation. Any remains of the Barton Aqueduct, including the earthen canal embankment, also have a high group value with the designated heritage assets associated with the Manchester Ship Canal, specifically the Grade II* listed Barton Swing Bridge (GE 08) and Swing Aqueduct (GE 07).

6.3.5 Survival / Condition The survival, extent and condition of any below-ground archaeological remains within the Site is presently unknown. A measured survey of the Site carried out by the Trafford Park Development Corporation in May 1990, and currently held within the Peel Archives, marks the position of the capping stones to the side walls of the original canal channel (GE 01), implying that they survived in-situ, although this awaits confirmation. It is possible that stone-built retaining walls and associated buttresses deriving from the original construction of the canal in 1760-61 may exist at depth within the earthen embankment (GE 02), although it is not entirely certain that such structures were actually built and, if they had been, whether they were removed or replaced during the documented reconstruction work in 1822-24. Remains of the structures to the west of Barton Aqueduct (GE 07) and possible brick kilns (GE 08) were likely removed during the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal.

6.3.6 Fragility / Vulnerability As a general principle, any buried archaeological remains that are present and survive in-situ, can be vulnerable to damage or destruction during earth-moving works necessitated by development and improvement works. With reference to the Site, however, any below-ground remains of archaeological interest that do survive and likely to comprise structural remains, such as the stone walls lining the original canal channel (GE 01) and retaining walls embedded within the earthen embankment (GE 02). The survival of fragile archaeological remains is not considered to be likely.

6.3.7 Diversity Any archaeological remains within Site will be associated exclusively with the Bridgewater Canal, and are unlikely to have a diversity value. Other remains, such as the structures to the west of Barton Aqueduct (GE 07) and possible brick kilns (GE 08), were likely removed and therefore do not contribute to the diversity of the Site.

6.3.8 Potential The Site has potential to contain below-ground remains dating to the period spanning the mid-eighteenth century to the mid-nineteenth century. In particular, the potential

© SA: Barton Bridges, Greater Manchester: Archaeological Desk-based Assessment 30 below-ground remains include structural elements of the side walls of the original canal channel (GE 01), and stone-built retaining walls and associated buttresses deriving from the original construction of the canal in 1760-61 may exist at depth within the earthen embankment (GE 02). There is no potential for any archaeological remains pre-dating the mid-eighteenth century. 6.4 Significance of Below-Ground Archaeological Remains

Using the above criteria, and particularly period, rarity, survival/condition, the Site contains historic structural elements of the Bridgewater Canal that are undoubtedly significant, and may also contain some buried archaeological remains of significance. Whilst it is considered that the infilled material within the original channel of the canal (GE 01) has little archaeological potential, any surviving structural remains of the side walls and their associated capping stones will be of some significance. Similarly, any stone-built retaining walls and associated buttresses deriving from the original construction of the canal in 1760-61 would be of significance, although should these survive that are likely to be buried to depth within the earthen embankment (GE 02). Remains of brick fields would be of archaeological interest, however, remains of demolished kilns were likely destroyed during the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal. Remains of nineteenth-century housing would be of little archaeological or historical interest. The significance of each site is summarised in Table 3, below.

GE No. Gazetteer Entry Name Significance 01 Bridgewater Canal channel (side walls) National (part of scheduled monument) 01 Bridgewater Canal channel (infilled channel) National (part of scheduled monument) 02 Earthen canal embankment National (part of scheduled monument) 03 Retaining wall National (part of scheduled monument) 04 Aqueduct wing wall National (part of scheduled monument) 05 Twentieth-century retaining wall (Low) Local 06 Houses of Chapel Place (site of) (Low) Local 07 Structures to the west of Barton Aqueduct (site of) Local 08 Brick Kiln Field (site of) Local 09 Terraced houses at Barton Road (site of) Low) Local

Table 3: Assessment of the significance of the Gazetteer Entries identified within the Site

7. Impact of Development

7.1 Development Proposals The proposed development comprises the construction of a footbridge, which will run parallel with the existing Barton Swing Bridge. The footbridge will be raised and therefore will not require substantial ground-breaking works, however some limited ground works will be required for the installation of footbridge supports. 7.2 Impact of Development on Below-Ground Remains Any ground-breaking works associated with the proposed development has the potential to remove any buried archaeological remains. The assessment has shown that the Site contains the scheduled monument known as the Bridgewater Canal’s Barton Aqueduct and the archaeological interest of the Site is associated with the Barton Aqueduct and its development. The construction of the footbridge is unlikely to require substantial earth-moving or ground-breaking works. However, the excavations that will be required for the footbridge support foundations are likely to adversely affect any remains associated with the Barton Aqueduct that are located within the footprint of these excavations.

8. Further Investigation

8.1 Heritage Assets

The NPPF makes clear that where the loss of the whole or a material part of a non- designated heritage asset’s significance is justified by a development, the developer should be required to record that asset and advance understanding of its significance, and to make this evidence publicly accessible.

8.2 Further Investigation Any development within the area of the scheduled monument known as the “Bridgewater Canal’s Barton Aqueduct embankment and retaining walls” will require scheduled monument consent. Application for Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) must be made to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport before any work can be carried out which might affect a monument either above or below ground level. Elsewhere within the Site, due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area (Fig. 12), archaeological monitoring via a programme of archaeological watching brief may be required during excavation works relating to the installation of foundation for the bridge supports, as well as for any other phases of work which may affect below-ground remains. The requirement for any further archaeological investigation within the area beyond the scheduled monument in advance of, or during, development works will be decided by the Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service (GMAAS), in their capacity as archaeological advisor to Salford City Council.

Sources

Cartographic Sources Ordnance Survey 6”: 1 mile map, published 1848 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 map, published 1896 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 map, 1908 edition, surveyed 1908 Ordnance Survey 1:2500 map, 1929 edition Ordnance Survey 1:2500 map, 1937 edition Ordnance Survey 1:1250 National Grid map, published 1955 Ordnance Survey 1:1250 National Grid map, published 1970

Secondary Sources Bruton, F.A. 1909 The Roman Fort at Manchester, Manchester Countryside Commission, 1998 Countryside Character Volume 2: North West, Cheltenham Farrer, W. and Brownbill, J. (eds) 1908 Victoria County History of Lancashire, 4, London GMAU, 1992. Dumplington, Trafford Park: An Archaeological Assessment. The Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit. Hadfield, C. and Biddle, G. 1970 The Canals of North West England, 2, Newton Abbot Hart-Davis, H. V. 1914. A Short History of Worsley Kidd, A. 1996 Manchester, 2nd edition, Keele Leader Williams, E. 1907 History of the Manchester Ship Canal from its Inception to Completion Vols. 1 and 2, Manchester McNeil, R. and Newman, R. 2007 ‘The Industrial and Modern Period Research Agenda’, in M. Brennand (ed) The Archaeology of North West England: An Archaeological Research Framework for North West England: Volume 2, CBA North West, 9 (19), Manchester, 133-58 Tupling, G.H. 1962 ‘Medieval and Early Modern Manchester’, in C.F. Carter (ed) Manchester and its Region, Manchester 115-130 Wood, C. 2007 Manchester’s Ship Canal: The Big Ditch, Tempus Websites Bridgewater Canal’s Barton Aqueduct https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1470478 Date accessed: 15/04/2021 Scheduled Monument Consent https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/consents/smc/ Date accessed: 15/04/2021

Acknowledgements

Salford Archaeology would like to thank Turley, and particularly Jack Haw, for commissioning and supporting the project on behalf of the Bridgewater Canal Company. Further thanks also given to Ian Miller and Lesley Dunkley of GMAAS for their advice and assistance. The desk-based research and report was compiled by Ian Miller and Ashley Brogan, and the illustrations were produced by Sarah Mottershead and Ashley Brogan.

Appendix 1: Figures

Figure 1: Site location map Figure 2: Site boundary superimposed onto modern mapping Figure 3: Site boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1848 Figure 4: Site boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1896 Figure 5: Site boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1908 Figure 6: Site boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1929 Figure 7: Site boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1937 Figure 8: Site boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1955 Figure 9: Site boundary superimposed on the Ordnance Survey map of 1970 Figure 10: Location of Bridgewater Canal's Barton Aqueduct embankment and retaining walls scheduled monument Figure 11: Locations of Gazetteer Entries (GE) Figure 12: Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity

Site location

Figure 1:

Site Location

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2021 Salford Archaeology, Peel Building,The Crescent, Salford, M5 4WT Contains OS data © Crown copyright and database right (2019) 376600 376800 397800 397800 397600 397600 397400 397400

Figure 2: N Key: Site Boundary Superimposed onto Modern Mapping Site Boundary

0 100 m

Scale at A4 1:2000 Salford Archaeology, Peel Building,The Crescent, Salford, M5 4WT Figure 3: N Key:

Site Boundary Superimposed onto the 1:10560 County Series Map of 1848 Site boundary

0 100 m

Scale at A4 1:2000 Salford Archaeology, Peel Building,The Crescent, Salford, M5 4WT Figure 4: N Key: Site Boundary Superimposed onto the 1:2500 County Series Map of 1896 Site Boundary

0 100 m

Scale at A4 1:2000 Salford Archaeology, Peel Building,The Crescent, Salford, M5 4WT Figure 5: N Key: Site Boundary Superimposed onto the 1:2500 County Series Map of 1908 Site Boundary

0 100 m

Scale at A4 1:2000 Salford Archaeology, Peel Building,The Crescent, Salford, M5 4WT Figure 6: N Key: Site Boundary Superimposed onto the 1:2500 County Series Map of 1929 Site Boundary

0 100 m

Scale at A4 1:2000 Salford Archaeology, Peel Building,The Crescent, Salford, M5 4WT Figure 7: N Key: Site Boundary Superimposed onto the 1:2500 County Series Map of 1937 Site Boundary

0 100 m

Scale at A4 1:2000 Salford Archaeology, Peel Building,The Crescent, Salford, M5 4WT Figure 8: N Key: Site Boundary Superimposed onto the 1:2500 National Grid Map of 1955 Site Boundary

0 100 m

Scale at A4 1:2000 Salford Archaeology, Peel Building,The Crescent, Salford, M5 4WT Figure 9: N Key: Site Boundary Superimposed onto the 1:2500 National Grid Map of 1970 Site Boundary

0 100 m

Scale at A4 1:2000 Salford Archaeology, Peel Building,The Crescent, Salford, M5 4WT Key: GE01 Houses of Booth Street West (site of) GE02 Houses of Edensor Place (site of)

Figure 10: Key: Location of the Bridgewater Canal's Barton Aqueduct embankment Site Boundary and retaining walls scheduled monument

GE 09

GE 01

GE 02

GE 03 GE 05

GE 02

GE 04

GE 08

GE 07 GE 01

GE 06

Figure 11: Key: GE 01 Bridgewater Canal GE 02 Bridgewater Canal Embankment Locations of Gazetteer Entries (GE) Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right GE 03 Bridgewater Canal Retaining Wall 2021 GE 04 Bridgewater Canal Aqueduct Wing Wall GE 05 Bridgewater Canal Retaining Wall GE 06 Houses of Chapel Place (site of) GE 07 Structures to the west of Barton Aqueduct (site of) GE 08 Brick Kiln Field (site of) GE 09 Terraced houses at Barton Road (site of) Salford Archaeology, Peel Building,The Crescent, 4WTM5 Salford, Peel Building,The Archaeology, Salford Key: GE01 Houses of Booth Street West (site of) GE02 Houses of Edensor Place (site of)

Figure 12: Key:

Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity Site Boundary

Medium Sensitivity Salford Archaeology, Peel Building,The Crescent, 4WTM5 Salford, Peel Building,The Archaeology, Salford

CONSULTANCY DESK-BASED ASSESSMENTS WATCHING BRIEF & EVALUATION

EXCAVATION BUILDING SURVEY 3D LASER SCANNING

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT LANDSCAPE SURVEYS DRONE SURVEYS

WORKSHOPS & RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS SEMINARS, DAYSCHOOLS VOCATIONAL TRAINING CPD EVENTS

The Centre for Salford Archaeology, Peel Building, School of Science, Engineering & Environment, Applied Archaeology University of Salford, Manchester, M5 4WT Telephone: 01612953818 Email: [email protected]