MESSRS BOWE,

LAND ADJACENT TO ELIZABETH TERRACE, WHITEHAVEN, CUMBRIA

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

February 2017

Wardell Armstrong Cocklakes Yard, Carlisle, Cumbria CA4 0BQ, United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0)1228 564820 Fax: +44(0)1228 560025 www.wa‐archaeology.com

DATE ISSUED: February 2017 JOB NUMBER: CL11940 OASIS REFERENCE: wardella2‐275258 REPORT NUMBER: RPT‐001 GRID REFERENCE: NX 98575 19111

MESSRS BOWE

LAND ADJACENT TO ELIZABETH CRESCENT, WHITEHAVEN, CUMBRIA

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

February 2017

PREPARED BY: EDITED BY: APPROVED BY: Cat Peters Richard Newman Frank Giecco

Researcher Project Manager Technical Director

This report has been prepared by Wardell Armstrong with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, within the terms of the Contract with the Client. The report is confidential to the Client and Wardell Armstrong accepts no responsibility of whatever nature to third parties to whom this report may be made known.

No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of Wardell Armstrong.

DESK BASED ASSESSMENTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION Wardell Armstrong is the trading name of Wardell Armstrong LLP, Registered in England No. OC307138. GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY

Registered office: Sir Henry Doulton House, Forge Lane, Etruria, Stoke‐on‐Trent, ST1 5BD, United Kingdom TOPOGRAPHIC AND LANDSCAPE SURVEY HISTORIC BUILDING RECORDING UK Offices: Stoke‐on‐Trent, Cardiff, Carlisle, Edinburgh, Greater Manchester, London, Newcastle upon Tyne, Sheffield, Taunton, Truro, West Bromwich. International Offices: Almaty, Moscow ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

CONTENTS SUMMARY ...... 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 2 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 Circumstances of Project ...... 3 1.2 The Purpose of the Heritage Impact Assessment ...... 3 1.3 National Planning Policy and Legislative Framework ...... 3 1.4 Local Planning Policies ...... 4 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 5 2.1 Introduction ...... 5 2.2 Documentary Sources ...... 5 2.3 Site Visit ...... 5 2.4 Impact Assessment Tables ...... 5 2.5 Heritage Impact Assessment ...... 6 2.6 Reporting ...... 7 2.7 Glossary ...... 7 3 DESCRIPTION ...... 8 3.1 Location and Geology ...... 8 3.2 Historic Landscape Character ...... 8 3.3 Archaeological and Historical Background ...... 8 3.4 Previous Archaeological Works ...... 18 3.5 Designated Heritage Assets ...... 18 3.6 Undesignated Heritage Assets ...... 18 3.7 The Character of the Development ...... 18 4 SITE VISIT ...... 20 5 DISCUSSION ...... 24 5.1 Summary of Heritage Asset Significance ...... 24 5.2 Magnitude of Impact on Heritage Assets ...... 24 5.3 Heritage Statement ...... 25 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 26 6.1 Primary Sources ...... 26 6.2 Secondary Sources ...... 27 6.3 Internet Sources ...... 28 6.4 Other Sources ...... 29 APPENDIX 1: HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT TABLES ...... 30

CL11940/RPT‐001 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF HERITAGE ASSETS ...... 33 APPENDIX 3: FIGURES ...... 39

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES Figure 1: Site location Figure 2: Detailed site location Figure 3: Location of heritage assets within an 800m radius of the study area Figure 4: Hodskinson and Donald’s Plan of Cumberland, 1774 Figure 5: Plan of Akebank Tenement and Harras Park, nd Figure 6: Plan of Harris Park, c. 1810 Figure 7: Wood’s Plan of the Borough of Whitehaven, 1830 Figure 8: Creighton’s Plan of Whitehaven, 1835 Figure 9: First Edition Ordnance Survey Map, 1863 Figure 10: Brodie’s Plan of the Parliamentary and Municipal Borough of Whitehaven, 1894 Figure 11: Second Edition Ordnance Survey Map, 1899 Figure 12: Third Ordnance Survey Map, 1925 Figure 13: Ordnance Survey Map, 1962

PLATES Plate 1: RCHME Prospect of Whitehaven from the Sea by Jan Wyck, 1686 10 Plate 2: Read’s View of Whitehaven Port, c. 1715 (after Burkett 1995) 11 Plate 3: Google Earth imagery, 31st December 2003 18 Plate 4: General view of site from Scilly Bank to the east, facing west 20 Plate 5: Public footpath to the east of the site, facing north‐north‐east 21 Plate 6: Eastern set of gate stoops, facing north‐west 21 Plate 7: Western set of gate stoops, facing south 22 Plate 8: Eastern stone gate stoop, facing east 22 Plate 9: Western stone gate stoop, facing east 22 Plate 10: Southern field boundary from south‐east of site, facing west‐north‐west 23 Plate 11: Southern field boundary from western extent of site, facing south‐east 23

CL11940/RPT‐001 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

SUMMARY

Wardell Armstrong was commissioned by Messrs Bowe to undertake a Heritage Impact Assessment for land adjacent to Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven (NGR: NX 98575 19111) to support a planning application for a development at the site. This work comprised a consultation of sources relating to the area’s development and a site visit. This Heritage Impact Assessment summarised the results of the research and site visit.

This Heritage Impact Assessment is designed to show the impact on the heritage significance of upstanding heritage assets within the 800m study area, and the potential for encountering as‐yet unknown heritage assets within the site boundary.

The proposed development site has been found to lie within agricultural land associated with Harras Park Farm. During the mid to late 18th century, the wider environs was exploited by Sir James Lowther’s Whingill mining landscape, and six associated pits with adjoining waggonways and quarries dotting the area. At around this time, the land was reorganised into smaller fields, and a former field boundary dating to this period once lay within the proposed development site. Before this, the land was known as Harras Park, an area consisting of ten plots of land, the proposed development site being within a plot known as ‘Long Rush’. Harras Park originated as a tract of land associated with Holme Cultram Abbey. It was a grange in existence by 1220 as a monastic grange, and it could be that the present Harras Park Farm is on the site of the foundation. The present southern boundary of the proposed development site, a typical Cumbrian kest, has been found to have traces dating back to at least the late 17th century, and may be of medieval origin.

This study found that a development within the site boundary would result in a limited impact on heritage significance in relation to the existing southern boundary of the site, and in relation to a former field divisions within the proposed development site. This level of impact may require further archaeological work, dependent upon advice from Cumbria County Council’s Historic Environment Team.

Furthermore, there is a possibility of as‐yet unknown buried remains, particularly of medieval origin, relating to the site’s location within a former medieval grange, and potentially to mid‐late 18th/ early 19th century mining features.

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 1 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Wardell Armstrong thanks Messrs Bowe who commissioned the project. Wardell Armstrong also thank Mark Brennand, at Cumbria County Council’s Historic Environment Team, for data from the Historic Environment Record. Wardell Armstrong are grateful to the staff at the Cumbria Archive Centres at Whitehaven and Carlisle for all their assistance.

The site visit and the documentary research was undertaken by Cat Peters.

The report was written by Cat Peters and the figures were produced by Adrian Bailey. Richard Newman managed the project and edited the report.

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 2 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Circumstances of Project

1.1.1 Wardell Armstrong was commissioned by Messrs Bowe to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment for land adjacent to Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven, Cumbria (centred on NX 98575 19111). This assessment is to support a planning application for a proposed residential development at the site which is located at Harras, to the north‐east of the centre of Whitehaven (Figure 1). At the time of this study the proposed development site comprised a field in use as pasture, to the south of Elizabeth Crescent, and forming the northerly extent of agricultural land associated with Harras Park farm (Figure 2).

1.1.2 This archaeological desk‐based assessment was recommended by Jeremy Parsons, Historic Environment Record Officer at Cumbria County Council, to support the associated planning application, as the site is deemed to have the potential to contain archaeological assets. It is located in a former deer park, and historic maps show a number of 19th century industrial sites in the immediate vicinity.

1.2 The Purpose of the Heritage Impact Assessment

1.2.1 This Heritage Impact Assessment is designed to show the impact on the heritage significance of heritage assets, within an 800m radius of the proposed redevelopment area, an area hitherto referred to as the study area.

1.2.2 The Heritage Impact Assessment seeks to address in detail the issues of impacts on heritage significance and to do this it both seeks to understand the significance of the assets before evaluating the impact of the development proposals upon them.

1.3 National Planning Policy and Legislative Framework

1.3.1 National planning policies on the conservation of the historic environment are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which was published by the Department of Communities and Local Government in March 2012. This is supported by National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) which was published in March 2014.

1.3.2 The NPPF draws a distinction between designated heritage assets and other remains considered to be of lesser significance. With regard to designated heritage assets, “great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation”. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be; substantial harm to or loss of a Grade II Listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, including scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, Grade I and II* Listed Buildings and

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 3 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Grade I and II* Registered Parks and Gardens and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional’ (NPPF, para 132). Therefore, preservation in‐situ is the preferred course in relation for such sites unless exceptional circumstances exist.

1.3.3 The NPPF advises that local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and within the setting of heritage assets in order to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably (NPPF, para 137).

1.4 Local Planning Policies

1.4.1 The Copeland Local Plan 2013‐2028: Adopted Core Strategy and Development Management Policies was implemented in December 2013. The relevant policy ENV4 sets out the plans to enhance and preserve the Borough’s built environment and heritage assets. It is linked to the strategic principle in Policy ST1C.

1.4.2 They aim to enhance the historic environment by “protecting listed buildings, conservation areas and other townscape and rural features considered to be of historic, archaeological or cultural value”. This includes giving support to proposals for heritage led regeneration, with the aim that “any listed buildings or other heritage assets are put to an appropriate, viable and sustainable use”, while “strengthening the distinctive character of the Borough’s settlements, through the application of high quality urban design and architecture that respects this character and enhances the settings of listed buildings”.

1.4.3 This policy focuses on the corresponding need to both protect heritage assets, and to develop these assets to create places of quality and character.

1.4.4 Areas of archaeological significance should be preserved for their historical and archaeological potential and value. Any proposal that can bring a vacant listed building back into a viable, sustainable and appropriate use will be supported.

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 4 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 The preparation of the Heritage Impact Assessment has been undertaken in accordance with guidance recommended by English Heritage and prepared by Bassetlaw District Council (2011). Note is also taken of the English Heritage guidance on understanding place (2010 and 2011) and on the setting of heritage assets (2012).

2.1.2 The data underlying the Heritage Impact Assessment was gathered through desk‐ based study of documentary sources and via a site visit. The impact of the development on upstanding assets within the 800m search radius, was assessed using a series of standard tables (see Appendix 2).

2.2 Documentary Sources

2.2.1 The primary and secondary sources were used to provide the background to the historical character of the study area. Much of the information in this Heritage Impact Assessment was derived from sources available at the Cumbria Archive Centres of Whitehaven and Carlisle, and the Cumbria Historic Environment Record, held at Kendal.

2.2.2 Historic England’s guidance on historic area assessments, conservation areas and heritage asset setting was used to establish the compliance of the development scheme proposals with best practice planning guidance.

2.3 Site Visit

2.3.1 The site and its environs were visited on the 1st February 2017. Access was gained through publicly accessible footpaths and routes.

2.3.2 The study area was inspected to:

• identify any as yet unknown features within the proposed development site

• identify whether any known features identified during the research are still present within the proposed development site boundaries

• consider the impact of the proposed residential development on the heritage significance of the heritage assets within a 800m radius

2.4 Impact Assessment Tables

2.4.1 The assessment of the impact of development proposals is undertaken using a series of heritage impact tables (Appendix 2). These tables use standard assessment

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 5 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

methods as used by Government agencies, as for example those used in the Highway Agency’s Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (2007). These tables first establish the significance of the heritage asset against set criteria, secondly they estimate the magnitude of impact and, taking the results of these two together, allow a calculation of impact on overall heritage significance.

2.5 Heritage Impact Assessment

2.5.1 For the purposes of this report, the term ‘site’ is used to refer to the area within the proposed development site boundary (Figure 2) and the term ‘study area’ is used for the wider 800m radial contextual area surrounding the site (Figure 3).

2.5.2 Several sources of information were consulted, in accordance with professional guidelines (CIfA 2014) and local curatorial requirements. A further search of online resources was undertaken in order to identify any designated sites such as scheduled monuments, listed buildings and conservation areas, around the proposed development area. This was done in order to help assess the possible impact of the proposed development on archaeologically sensitive areas. The principal sources of information were historical maps and secondary sources.

2.5.3 Cumbria County Council Historic Environment Record (HER): the HER, maintained by Cumbria County Council, was consulted in February 2017 in order to obtain information regarding known designated heritage assets (for example listed buildings, scheduled monuments and conservation areas), and non‐designated heritage assets, i.e. sites of historic or archaeological interest which are not designated, from within the study area.

2.5.4 Full details of all these assets are included in Appendix 1 and their locations are represented by asset numbers in Figure 3.

2.5.5 Cumbria Archive Centre, Whitehaven (CACW): early cartographic sources were consulted at the archive centre at Whitehaven, and a search was undertaken for any other relevant documentary or cartographic information.

2.5.6 Cumbria Archive Centre, Carlisle (CACC): early cartographic sources were consulted at the archive centre at Whitehaven, and a search was undertaken for any other relevant documentary or cartographic information.

2.5.7 Wardell Armstrong: various publications and unpublished reports on excavations and other work in the region are held within the Wardell Armstrong library and these were examined.

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 6 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

2.5.8 Websites: various websites were checked for information relevant to the site’s assessment, including Google Earth™, the British Geological Survey, and the Archaeological Data Service. These are listed, as appropriate, in the bibliography.

2.6 Reporting

2.6.1 A final bound copy of the report will be deposited with Cumbria County Council’s Historic Environment team, where viewing will be made available on request.

2.6.2 Wardell Armstrong support the Online AccesS to the Index of archaeological investigationS (OASIS) project. This project aims to provide an online index and access to the extensive and expanding body of grey literature created as a result of developer‐funded archaeological work. As a result, details of the results of this study will be made available by Wardell Armstrong, as a part of this national scheme, under code: wardella2‐275298.

2.7 Glossary

2.7.1 The following standard terms are used throughout the report:

 Designation – the process that acknowledges the significance of a heritage asset and thus advances its level of consideration/protection within the planning process. Designated assets can either be statutory, like listed buildings, or non‐ statutory such as registered parks and gardens or conservation areas.

 Heritage Asset – a building, monument, site, place, area or defined landscape positively identified as having a degree of heritage significance that merits consideration in planning decisions.

 Historic Environment Record – an information service, usually utilising a database that provides public access to up‐to‐date and dynamic resources relating to the historic environment of a defined geographic area.

 Mitigation – action taken to reduce potential adverse impacts on the heritage significance of a place.

 Setting – the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. The extent is not fixed and will vary according to the historic character of the asset and the evolution of its surroundings.

 Significance – the value of a heritage asset to present and future generations attributable of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic (including historical associations).

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 7 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

3 DESCRIPTION

3.1 Location and Geology

3.1.1 The port town of Whitehaven, Cumbria, is within Copeland district and was formerly within the historic county of Cumberland. It is situated 38 miles south‐west of Carlisle (Figure 1). The proposed development site is located in Harras, to the north‐east of the centre of Whitehaven. It comprises a field to the south of Elizabeth Crescent, centred on NGR NX 98575 19111. At the time of this study this field was in use as pasture, and formed the northerly extent of agricultural land associated with Harras Park farm (Figure 2).

3.1.2 The site is bounded by housing developments on Elizabeth Crescent to the north, and further agricultural land to the east, south, and west. The access track to the proposed new development would be to the north‐west, from Elizabeth Terrace, and although this stretch is included within the proposed development site boundary, it is unlikely that this road, with housing either side, will be affected.

3.1.3 The geology of the site consists of sandstone of the Whitehaven Sandstone Formation, a sedimentary bedrock formed approximately 307 to 310 million years ago in the Carboniferous Period (BGS 2017).

3.2 Historic Landscape Character

3.2.1 The proposed development site lies within the ‘Area 47: West Cumberland Plain’ Historic Landscape Character area (Cumbria County Council 2009, 105). It is a coastal area, extending from the Solway Coast in the north, to Egremont in the south, as part of both Allerdale and Copeland Districts. Its character is dominated by urban and industrial sites. Whitehaven is counted as the earliest classically planned new town in England. Although it has a long industrial and maritime history, 71% of the settlement post‐dates 1900 (Cumbria County Council 2009, 105). There are relatively few former common arable fields in the Copeland District, and its fieldscape is dominated by ancient enclosures.

3.3 Archaeological and Historical Background

3.3.1 The historical and archaeological background is compiled from secondary sources and primary records consulted in February 2017. It is intended only as a summary of historical developments around the site. The locations of known heritage assets within the 800m study area are shown in Figure 3, and summarised in Appendix 2.

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 8 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

3.3.2 Prehistoric and Roman Periods: evidence for Roman activity in the study area comes from the discovery of a number of Roman coins (Asset 1) and a Roman tile (Asset 2) in the vicinity of Moresby. A linear parchmark, once suggested to have been the line of a Roman road, has more recently been thought to relate to the line of overhead power cables (Asset 30).

3.3.3 Medieval Period: Harras was known as Harrays c. 1220, Harres in 1447 and Arras Parke in 1500 (The Historical Gazetteer of England’s Place Names 2017). Furthermore, “Harras Park, near Whitehaven” has been identified as a monastic grange (Asset 31), one of Holm Cultram’s 19 granges “concentrated along the coast of Cumberland” (Newman 2014, 151). This block of land was in existence by 1220, when “Adam de Harrais, with consent of his heir, grants to Holm abbey land by these bounds‐ from Branstibec up stream from his great spring to the monks dyke; up the dyke by the gate he made and gave to them, to the moor beyond, to his common pasture…” (Grainger and Collingwood 1929, 32‐33, quoted in British History Online 2017). There is also a reference to “the house of Adam de Harreys” (ibid), perhaps Harras Park Farm.

3.3.4 The Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment Survey recorded former ridge and furrow in the fields to the north of the proposed development site and in a single filed adjacent to Harras Park Farm (Brennand pers. comm. 2017), indicative of the potential for further evidence of early agricultural activity in the immediate vicinity.

3.3.5 The term park was often applied in Cumbria to granges where they formed discrete blocks of land. A number of the granges of Furness Abbey had parks as the second element of their place‐name. the term does not imply that they were deer parks.

3.3.6 Post Medieval Period: the earliest known reference to mining in the Whitehaven area dates to the time of Prior Langton (1256‐82) and relates to coal mines at Arrowthwaite (Hay 1979). Despite these early origins, mining did not have a vast impact on the landscape until 1670, when Sir John Lowther bought the manor of St Bees and expanded his territory “with a view to monopolising the coal trade” (Cumbria County Council nd, 9). Sir John Lowther bought the mansion, The Flatt, in 1675 and improved and extended it, and from 1769, when it was demolished and rebuilt, it has been known as Whitehaven Castle (Asset 23).

3.3.7 By the end of the 17th century, Whitehaven was a thriving and rapidly expanding town (Rollinson 1996, 71). In 1739, when Sir John Clerk visited the town to view the coalworks, the “principal coal sink… [was] to the westward of the port, on the sea side” (quoted in Prevost 1965, 308), and this must have been Wellington Pit. “The deepest

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 9 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

sink in England is said to be that at the top of the hill which overlooks the harbour” (ibid, 210), and this must be William Pit, to the north of the town, also on the coast. No other pits are mentioned in this 1739 account, though most of the early mining was well out of town, along the high ridge to the south and on Harras Moor to the east (Marshall and Davies‐Shiel 1977). The workings to the south and west of the town were part of Howgill Colliery and those to the north and east, Whingill Colliery (Routledge 2002, 37).

3.3.8 Jan Wyck’s Prospect of Whitehaven from the Sea of 1686 does show buildings to the left of the image in the direction of the proposed development site, though this could be the Windsor Hill area to the south (Plate 1). Harras Park, the tenement in which the proposed development site lay, was in existence by this date, as it is mentioned in a “dispute between Anthony Benn of Hensingham and John Younghusband of Hallas, St Bees concerning John Younghusband’s land rent and horse‐grass in Harras Park, and as to the upkeep of hedge there, 5th April 1686” (CACW YDX 154/7/30/14).

Plate 1: RCHME Prospect of Whitehaven from the Sea by Jan Wyck, 1686

3.3.9 Sir James Lowther inherited the estate in 1705, and opened out the Whingill district by sinking the Harras pit (Asset 24), which by 1716 was producing 200 tons a week (Routledge 2002, 39). A view of Whitehaven Port c. 1715 shows fields, roads and sporadic buildings to the north‐east of Whitehaven, though not clearly enough to identify the proposed development site specifically (Plate 2), and seems to reflect a largely agricultural landscape beyond the town limits.

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 10 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Plate 2: Read’s View of Whitehaven Port, c. 1715 (after Burkett 1995)

3.3.10 Further mining developments beyond the town occuring between 1755 and 1802, included the following winnings, made by James Spedding, son of Carlisle Spedding, and his successor John Bateman:‐ Croft, Wilson, James, Lady, George, Davy, North, Bateman, Howe, Wolfe, Scott, Harras and Moss Pits (Fletcher 1878, 288‐289). Davy Pit was opened in 1763 and was the first pit to utilise steam power to operate the winding gear with an atmospheric engine being installed (Asset 13). Lady Pit was sunk in 1765 (Asset 15), George Pit in 1767 (Asset 16) and North Pit in 1773 (Asset 22). Between 1755 and 1780, the average annual output from these pits was about 150,000 tons, and the price on board ship was about 3s. 4d. per ton (Fletcher 1878, 288‐289). Lady Pit (Asset 15) was located to the south‐west of the proposed development site, North Pit (Asset 22) to the south, George Pit (Asset 16) to the west and Davy Pit (Asset 13) to the east. Water from the George and Lady pits was discharged through a level driven 1.5 miles from the Bransty Beck to Harras Moor (Routledge 2002, 40). By 1781, when John Bateman took over from James Spedding as mining engineer, “Bateman, Davy, George, How, Jackson, North and Pearson pits were all producing good coal on the Whingill side. Harras had been abandoned” (ibid, 43). When John Piele replaced Bateman in 1811, the pits raising coal were “Croft, Kells, Moss, Saltom, Wilson, North and William” (ibid, 44). An air vent is also known from the study area, though it is not clear when this was constructed (Asset 18), and the same applies to the remains of a level (Asset 29).

3.3.11 Hodskinson and Donald’s county plan of 1774 does not show individual pits in the vicinity of the proposed development site, though Saltom is depicted to the west of Whitehaven (Figure 4). The plan shows the proposed development site within an empty tract of land south of ‘Ake Bank’, west of ‘Silly Bank’ and north of ‘Harras’ in an area annotated with ‘Sir James Lowther Bart.’, indicating the land was owned by the

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 11 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

manorial lord, James Lowther. No further detail is shown. ‘Ake Bank’ (Asset 32) had a windmill associated with it, as illustrated on a late 17th/ early 18th century plan (Figure 5) and mentioned in title deeds and papers relating to Aikbank Mill and surrounding land, 1610‐1772 (CACW YDX 159/1/2).

3.3.12 A Survey of St Bees, Whitehaven and Moresby was undertaken by Andrew Pelin in 1699 (CACC DLONS/W/6/1). The Harras tenement in this survey notebook is described as “bounded on the north‐east part by Akebank, on the south‐east by the Moore, on the south‐west by the Flatt tenement and on the north‐west by Bransty” (CACC DLONS/W/6/1). The “separate enclosures” are listed as follows:

Mrk. Name of Close Customary A R P 1 Corn Harras 6 3 1 2 Long Rush 14 3 9 3 Well Close 2 30 4 Rough Harras 27 2 27 5 Harras Garth 52 1 19 6 Middle Harras 1 2 8 7 Middle Harras 9 2 5 8 Whinny Harras 3 1 9 Harras Garth 8 2 20 10 Whinny Harras 1 1 32

3.3.13 A copy plan of the Akebank Tenement and Harras Park, held at Whitehaven record office (CACW YDX 304/14/4) appears to show the area at a similar date to the survey above (c. 1699) and certainly pre‐1755, when mining was extended in the area to include George Pit (Asset 16), Davy Pit (Asset 13) and Lady Pit (Asset 15) (confer 3.3.10). None of these pits are shown on the tenement plan (Figure 5). The land south of the road includes ten named plots, using the same names as those used in the 1699 survey (confer table above). The proposed development site itself at this date seems to have lain within ‘Long Rash’, a large irregular field within the northern extent of the Harras Park tenement. Aikbank (Asset 32) is shown to the north‐west and a building is shown within ‘Well Close’ to the south‐east (Asset 33). The name ‘mill close’, suggest that this building had a well associated with it. This building is not shown on a plan of c. 1810 (Figure 6). A further building is shown to the south, within ‘Middle Harras’ (Figure 5). This is likely to be Harras Park (Asset 31), possibly retaining traces of the medieval “house of Adam de Harreys” (confer 3.3.3). A building further south is also shown, which seems to relate to ‘K’, ‘Harras Yeat’ on an 1810 plan (Figure 6), and

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 12 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

unlabelled buildings on the north side of ‘Low Harras’ on the First Edition Ordnance Survey map (Figure 9), perhaps a farmstead. A surviving cottage may be the remains of this farmstead.

3.3.14 The Plan of Harris Park of 1810 (CACW YDX 304/13/8; Figure 6) shows a similar area to the Akebank Tenement and Harras Park plan (CACW YDX 304/14/4; Figure 5; confer 3.3.13), but indicates the late 18th early 19th century impact of coal mining. James Pit (A on Figure 6), Lady Pit (B on Figure 6; Asset 15), George Pit (C on Figure 6; Asset 16), Davy Pit (D on Figure 6; Asset 13), North Pit (E on Figure 6; Asset 22) and Harras Pit (F on Figure 6; Asset 24) are depicted. These were all sunk between 1755 and 1780 (confer 3.3.10). According to Routledge, however, by 1811 only North Pit (Asset 22) was still working of these six (Routledge 2002, 44), so it is interesting that the others are depicted on this 1810 plan. This plan also shows that a waggonway existed (Asset 35), running from the south‐west along what is now Victoria Road, and diverting to link each pit to it. This appears to roughly follow the probable track or road shown separating the Aikbank and Harras Park tenements on the earlier map, though the route is smoother and slightly more to the south at its northerly extent (Figure 5). The building shown on the earlier map in ‘Well Close’ (Asset 32), has gone, but another had been built to the south‐west, and is labelled on the accompanying table to the 1810 plan as Harras Side (Asset 36). To the west of the proposed development site, west of the waggonway and earlier road to the west which appears to be leading to Aikbank, is a building marked ‘G’, not shown on the earlier plan (Figure 5). The accompanying table names this as ‘Waggonwayside’ (Asset 37), and is therefore likely to be associated with the establishment of the waggonway and coal‐working in the vicinity, the pits being sunk between 1755 and 1780. A track leads from the opposite side of the road from ‘Waggonwayside’, south‐eastwards to the farmstead, now known as Harras Park (Figure 6), and this building was shown on the earlier map (Figure 5).

3.3.15 The proposed development site itself on this plan, appears to be predominantly plot ‘23’, with the western part occupying part of plot ‘24’, thus a north‐east south‐west aligned field boundary once existed within the proposed development site (Asset 39). Unfortunately the accompanying table does not name all of the individual field plots, and does not name these ones (Figure 6). The rough outline of plots 16, 17, 23 and 24 match the earlier ‘Long Rash’ marked on the late 17th early 18th plan, and this indicates that some form of land reorganisation/ enclosure had occurred during the 18th century. Despite this reorganisation, the southern boundary of plots 23 and 24, and

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 13 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

thus the southern boundary of the proposed development site, appears to match the southern boundary of Long Rash, on the earlier plan, suggesting that the existing southern boundary of the proposed development site is of at least late 17th/ early 18th century origin (Asset 38). No enclosure maps encountered during the research covered this area; it did not lie within Whitehaven, St Bees, Preston Low Quarter or Moresby enclosure or tithe map areas (CACW YDX 287; CACW YDX 287/1; CACW DBH/36/5/1/7 YPR 42/131; CACW YPR 42/136/2; CACW YPR 9/52; CACW YDX 304/13/21).

3.3.16 Lady Pit had a pottery associated with it, known locally as the High Pottery (Asset 20). The earliest record for this is “on an indenture for the provision of a Hallow‐ware Squeezer… dated 1817… [and] drawn up between Mr Peter Woodnorth, a partner in the large Whitehaven Pottery at this time, and an apprentice Watson Bell” (Sibson 2008, 171). It was sold in 1834 and taken over by Watson Bell and a man called Jackson; they described their wares as “ironstone, cane ware, blackglazed teapots, pomphry and grave vases” and advertised “vacancies for a few stout boys” (ibid). There are references to conveyances of property concerning the “pottery and premises at Lady Pit near Whitehaven” in 1852 (CACW YDX 660/2/3) and concerning the “mortgage of property at Lady Pit pottery” in 1856 (CACW YDX 660/2/23). It closed in the 1850s (Sibson 2008, 171), presumably after 1856, though it is still marked on the First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1863 (Figure 9).

3.3.17 Wood’s plan of Whitehaven 1830 “shows strong evidence of its external sea‐borne trade, with the customs house, a steam packet office, and a ‘sugar house’” (Robson 2013, 6). The inset, a Plan of the Borough of Whitehaven includes the area covering the proposed development site, though in less detail (Figure 7). It shows ‘Akebank’ (Asset 32) and ‘Lithemoore’ to the north, ‘Davy Pit’ (Asset 13) to the east and ‘Scilly Banks’ to the east, with ‘Harris Moor’ and ‘Burton High’ to the south, and ‘George’s Pit’ (Asset 16) to the west. At Scilly Banks was a pottery established by the Lowthers in 1754 (Asset 17), a possible kiln or clay extraction site (Asset 34), a brick and tile works (Asset 28) and a boundary stone (Asset 27).

3.3.18 Parson and White’s Trade Directory of 1829 claims that Whitehaven held a “distinguished rank amongst the commercial ports of Great Britain especially in the coal trade, in which it is inferior only to Newcastle and Sunderland” (quoted in Robson 2013, 7). This importance declined after the mid 19th century, illustrated by it being the largest town in Cumbria in 1801, the second largest after Carlisle in 1831 and 1861, and dropping to the fourth largest after Barrow, Carlisle and Workington by 1891 CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 14 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

(Robson 2013, 4). Similarly, the population decreased after 1861 from 19,500 in 1861 to 19,400 in 1891 and 19,000 in 1901 (ibid).

3.3.19 Creighton’s map of Whitehaven of 1835 (Figure 8) shows Bransty Road culminating at Tobacco Pipes, to the west of the proposed development site, New Road, heading north‐north‐west to Parton (the modern A5094) and Victoria Road heading east of this past Lady Pit (Asset 15) towards ‘Akebank’ (Asset 32), though it seems to peter out before reaching ‘Lithemoor’ (modern Quality Corner). George Pit is not shown. ‘Scilly Banks’ is shown to the east with four buildings depicted, as well as a further one to the west, presumably associated with Davy Pit (Asset 13). The irregular field boundary, or ‘Harras Dike’ (as labelled on the First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1863; Figure 9) is shown, with a collection of buildings to the south labelled ‘Harras Pit’ (Asset 24). Two buildings are shown in the vicinity of the proposed development site, and these could be Harras Park Farm (Asset 31), or Harras Side (Asset 36), as shown on the 1810 plan (Figure 6). In 1851, Harras Park Farm was inhabited by James and Ann Peile, born in 1792 and 1790, and married in Whitehaven in c. 1821 (Family History Whitehaven 2017). They had three children in 1851, Elizabeth, born in 1830, Thomas, born in 1832 and James, born in 1834 (ibid). Perhaps these were relatives of John Peile the mining engineer (confer 3.3.10).

3.3.20 A racecourse opened on Harras Moor, prior to this decline, to the south‐east of the proposed development site, in 1852 (Greyhound Derby 2017; Asset 21). This may have replaced an earlier recreation ground (Asset 25), said to have been constructed for the miners of North Pit (Asset 22). A press report of 1854 stated that by this date “the sport was quite up to the average usually witnessed in this locality” (whitehaven.org.uk 2017). There was a gap of five years after the meeting of 1864, and during “the 1870s, meetings were billed as ‘Whitehaven and Cumberland races’ offering steeplechase meetings as well as flat meetings, yet were still held on Harras Moor… The final meeting took place on Monday 26th May 1890” (Greyhound Derby 2017). The ‘Race Course’ with ‘Stand’ to the south‐west of it and circular ‘Wrestling Ring’ (presumably for Cumberland and Westmorland wrestling) within the south‐ eastern part of it, are shown on the First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1863 (Figure 9). The steeplechase made use of the surrounding landscape utilising existing field boundaries as obstacles (Buschmann 2016), and the route of this is shown on plans of the racecourse of 1855, heading east from the track, south of Moor House to Bearmouth Gate, then northwards, towards Round Close, before heading westwards to re‐enter to race course towards its the northern extent (CACW DH/217/3). It does

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 15 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

not seem to have included the proposed development site. A footpath or track is shown heading northwards from the racecourse to the east of the proposed development site which branches north‐east to David Pit (Asset 4) and the road beyond (now Victoria Road), and north‐west to the quarry south‐east of Aikbank (Asset 32).

3.3.21 The First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1863 (Figure 9) shows the main part of the proposed development site as forming much of the eastern part of a larger field numbered ‘52’. This field seems to have been the result of the merging of the earlier fields ’23’ and ‘24’ on the 1810 plan (Figure 6). The former field boundary separating the two no longer survives (Asset 39). The access route lies in a field to the north, numbered ‘22’. The track, formerly shown to the west of the proposed development site leading to Harras Park (Asset 31), is no longer in existence, Harras Park only accessed from the south by 1863 (compare Figures 6 and 9). The narrow field to the immediate east remains the same on both plans, and on the latter, is bounded to the east by a track running north‐east and branching north‐east again to David Pit (Asset 4) and north west to the quarry, and south to Harras Side (Asset 36). Harras Park (Asset 31) is shown to the south of the western edge of the proposed development site, with a well to its north. An old quarry and George Pit (Asset 16) lie to the west of the site. Both George Pit (Asset 16) and David Pit (Asset 4) appear to have still been operating in 1863, though an ‘old coal shaft’ is depicted associated with the latter. Davy Pit (Asset 13) with associated brickkiln (Asset 26) is shown to the east of David Pit (Asset 4). To the north of the proposed development site, in woodland south of Victoria Road, a quarry is shown. Harras Park quarry (Asset 9) and Roundclose Quarry (Asset 19) are also known from the study area. Bleachgreen farm is shown to the north‐west of the site, formerly Waggonwayside (Asset 37; Figure 6).

3.3.22 Brodie’s Plan of the Parliamentary and Municipal Borough of Whitehaven of 1894 (Figure 10) also still shows George Pit (Asset 16) and David Pit (Asset 4), though not Davy Pit (Asset 13). Terraced housing is depicted on the east side of Victoria Road, west of the proposed development site, and is labelled as Victoria Road on this map. A reservoir is shown to the east of Harras Park (Asset 31) and west of the race course (Asset 21), still shown though the last meeting was held in 1890 (confer 3.3.20). The proposed development itself appears the same as it was shown on the First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1863 (Figure 9). The plan is for the proposed extension of the borough of Whitehaven, which put the proposed development site within ‘St. James’ Ward’; St James Church itself having been built on the north‐east side of the town

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 16 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

centre in 1752 (Asset 10). The church is included on Copeland’s List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest. A bronze ornament, discovered c. 1898, is of unknown origin (Asset 2).

3.3.23 The Second Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1899 (Figure 11) shows the proposed development site lying within the same field as the 1894 map and First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1863 (Figures 9 and 10). The narrow field formerly to the east and the track formerly to the east of that no longer survive by 1899. David Pit (Asset 4) to the east still survives, with an ‘old shaft (coal)’ depicted to the north‐west of the buildings. The quarry to the north was an ‘old quarry’ by 1899 and George Pit (Asset 16) is no longer annotated to the west, presumably meaning it was no longer in use. The old quarry formerly shown to the west of the proposed development site is still shown, and a rectangular building has been added. Harras Park (Asset 31) survives to the south of the site, with the well to its north. To the south‐east of the proposed development site, ‘Harras Reservoir (covered)’ is shown, operated by Whitehaven Corporation Water Works, and this must have been built by 1894 (confer 3.3.22). The race course, wrestling ring and associated stand (Asset 21) is no longer depicted to the south‐east, and new buildings have been established to the west of the former racecourse, labelled ‘Harras Dike’, south of Harras Side (Asset 36).

3.3.24 Modern Period: the Third Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1925 (Figure 12) no longer labels any of the three former quarries in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development site. A footpath had been re‐established to the east of the site, heading north past David Pit (Asset 4), which is still labelled, to the main road (Victoria Road) and south to the reservoir. The field containing the proposed development site remains unchanged.

3.3.25 Between 1925 (Figure 12) and 1962 (Figure 13) the post‐war housing boom led to significant development around Whitehaven (Fisher nd, 2) and housing estates were established to the west of Victoria Road, with some houses extending beyond the proposed development site fronting the east side of the road. David Pit (Asset 4), to the east, had gone out of use in these intervening years, though the reservoir and Harras Park (Asset 31) are still shown to the south. Overhead electricity lines had also been established running across the north‐east corner of the proposed development site.

3.3.26 Several known sites relating to Second World War activity are known from the study area, including the site of a monitoring post (Asset 5), air raid shelters (Assets 6 and

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 17 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

7), a possible weapons pit (Asset 8), a searchlight battery (Asset 11) and two Royal Observater Corps posts (Asset 12).

3.3.27 By 2003 (Plate 3), housing had been established to the immediate north of the proposed development site, an area in which former ridge and furrow had been noted (confer 3.3.3), though the area to the east, south and west remained agricultural. The southern boundary appears to be tree‐lined (Asset 38).

Plate 3: Google Earth imagery, 31st December 2003

3.4 Previous Archaeological Works

3.4.1 A number of previous archaeological works have been undertaken in the vicinity. These are cited in the text above as relevant.

3.5 Designated Heritage Assets

3.5.1 There are no designated assets within the site boundary (Figures 2 and 3).

3.5.2 There is one listed building within the study area (Figure 3). This is the grade II listed building, The Flatt (or Whitehaven Castle) (Asset 23), which dates to 1675 and has been rebuilt and altered several times over the last few centuries, lastly as hospital building.

3.6 Undesignated Heritage Assets

3.6.1 There are 38 undesignated assets within the study area, summarised in Appendix 2 and included in the text above (confer 3.3).

3.7 The Character of the Development

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 18 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

3.7.1 No plans have been provided, of the character of the new development, but it is proposed to be residential in nature. Although residential development has already occurred to the south, the site lies on elevated ground with views of Whitehaven harbour to the west, and the Lakeland fells to the east and thus will have a visual impact on a wide area. Evidence for a former field boundary within the site itself, and for the area once forming part of a medieval grange, has been encountered, and mining activity has occurred in close proximity, meaning that evidence for features relating to this 18th and 19th century extraction activity cannot be ruled out. The proposed development site itself seems to have remained largely agricultural in nature, and the existing southern boundary of the site has been shown to be in place by at least the late 17th century, and as such falls under the The Hedgerow Regulations 1997’s definition of an historic hedgerow (DEFRA 1997; confer also 4.1.5).

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 19 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

4 SITE VISIT

4.1.1 The site was visited on Wednesday 1st February 2017. Access to the site was gained through a public footpath which led from Victoria Road to the north‐east of the former David Pit, south‐westwards to the reservoir to the south‐east of the proposed development site.

4.1.2 The proposed development site lies in an elevated area of agricultural land to the north‐east of Whitehaven at approximately 150m above sea level, south of an area of housing fronting Victoria Road. It lies on a hill which rises from Victoria Road to the west and east, as shown to the left of the pylon and housing in the picture below (Plate 4), Victoria Road lying in the dip in the foreground.

Plate 4: General view of site from Scilly Bank to the east, facing west

4.1.3 The public footpath shown on the Ordnance Survey map of 1925 (Figure 12), and following an earlier track shown on the First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1863 (Figure 9) was still in existence to the east of the eastern boundary of the proposed development site (Plate 5).

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 20 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Plate 5: Public footpath to the east of the site, facing north‐north‐east

4.1.4 Nothing of note was encountered within the proposed development site itself, and no traces of the former field boundary (Asset 39) known to have run north‐east to south‐ west was noted. Two sets of gate stoops were noted at the southern boundary, the eastern set was located approximately mid way along the boundary (Plate 6), and the western set was located at the south‐western corner of the site (Plate 7). The eastern set comprised one concrete and one stone stoop, the stone stoop, the easternmost, may be 19th century in origin (Plate 8). Similarly, the eastern gate stoop of the westernmost set was also stone (Plate 9), though western being concrete.

Plate 6: Eastern set of gate stoops, facing north‐west

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 21 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Plate 7: Western set of gate stoops, facing south

Plate 8: Eastern stone gate stoop, facing east Plate 9: Western stone gate stoop, facing east

4.1.5 The southern boundary itself, comprised a low section of stone wall with hedgerow on top, a Cumbrian kest (Plates 10 and 11). This style of boundary, referred to as ‘stone hedges’ in the Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment, was found by that assessment to be the most common form of field boundary in this area (Cranstone Consultants 2007). The stonework visible during that survey was found to be edge‐laid or herringbone work, though these section s may have been repairs rather than original construction (ibid).

4.1.6 The southern boundary of the proposed development site follows the same route as seen on early Ordnance Survey mapping (Figures 9, 11, 12 and 13) as well as the plan

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 22 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

of Harris Park of c. 1810 (Figure 6), and most likely on the earlier Harras Park plan (Figure 5), which may have been part of Andrew Pelin’s survey of 1699 (confer 3.3.12).

Plate 10: Southern field boundary from south‐east of site, facing west‐north‐west

Plate 11: Southern field boundary from western extent of site, facing south‐east

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 23 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Summary of Heritage Asset Significance

5.1.1 The proposed development site has been found to lie within agricultural land associated with Harras Park Farm (Asset 31). During the mid to late 18th century, the wider environs were exploited by Sir James Lowther for coal mining, and six associated pits (Assets 13, 15, 16, 18, 22 and 24) with adjoining waggonways (Asset 35) and quarries dotted the area (Assets 9 and 19). At around this time, the land was reorganised into smaller fields, and a former field boundary dating to this period once lay within the proposed development site (Asset 39). Prior to this reorganisation, the land was known as Harras Park (Asset 31), a discrete farm consisting of ten fields, the proposed development site being within an enclosure called ‘Long Rush’. This originated as a grange of Holme Cultram Abbey, before 1220, and it could be that the present Harras Park Farm incorporates some medieval landscape elements and building features. The present southern boundary of the proposed development site, a typical Cumbrian kest, has been found to have traces dating back to at least the late 17th century, and may itself be of medieval origin (Asset 38).

5.1.2 Of the heritage assets within the 800m study area, two of the total of 39 lie within the proposed development site (confer Appendix 2). One is a former field boundary (Asset 39), and the other is the existing southern field boundary (Asset 38). The latter is an historic hedgerow, and as such, is of district or county (lesser) significance (Appendix 1, Table 1). The former field boundary is of local significance (Appendix 1, Table 1).

5.1.3 Of the 37 heritage assets outside the proposed development site boundary, one is a grade II listed building (Asset 23), and therefore of district of county (higher) significance (Appendix 1, Table 1). The Church of St James (Asset 10), is included on Copeland’s List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest, and therefore of district or county (lesser) significance.

5.1.4 32 of the heritage assets outside the proposed development site boundary are, as non‐designated heritage assets, of local significance (Assets 4‐9, 11‐22, and 24‐37; Appendix 1, Table 1). The remaining three heritage assets are findspots, and are therefore of negligible significance (Assets 1‐3; Appendix 1, Table 1).

5.2 Magnitude of Impact on Heritage Assets

5.2.1 Although plans for the proposed development have not been provided, it is estimated that the impact on the existing historic field boundary (Asset 38) will be indirect, and

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 24 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

that the magnitude of impact is likely to be substantial (Appendix 1, Table 2). For the former field boundary (Asset 39) the impact will be direct, and the magnitude of impact is likely to be substantial (Appendix 1, Table 2).

5.2.2 The magnitude of impact of the redevelopment proposals on the assets of district or county significance would be no change (Appendix 1, Table 2) as there will be no intervisibility with the development. This applies to the Church of St James (Asset 10) and Whitehaven Castle (Asset 23).

5.2.3 For the 32 heritage assets of local significance, the magnitude of impact would be minor, as a housing development would mean a very small change, as there is already a modern housing development to the immediate north (Appendix 1, Table 2). For the three findspots of negligible significance, the magnitude of impact would be no change (Appendix 1, Table 2).

5.3 Heritage Statement

5.3.1 For those assets within the proposed development site, a substantial magnitude of impact on a heritage asset of district or county (lesser) or local significance will result in a limited impact on heritage significance, and this may require mitigation (Appendix 1, Table 3).

5.3.2 A magnitude of impact of no change, on heritage assets of district or county significance as with the Church of St James (Asset 10) and Whitehaven Castle (Asset 23) would result in no appreciable impact on heritage significance (Appendix 1, Table 3).

5.3.3 For the 35 heritage assets of local significance and negligible significance for which the magnitude of impact would be minor, the impact on heritage significance would be no appreciable impact (Appendix 1, Table 3).

5.3.4 There remains the potential for further as‐yet unknown remains to survive within the proposed development site boundary.

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 25 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

6 BIBLIOGRAPHY

6.1 Primary Sources

Title Deeds and Papers relating to Aikbank Mill and Surrounding Land, 1610‐1772 (CACW YDX 159/1/2).

A Survey of the St Bees, Whitehaven and Moresby was undertaken by Andrew Pelin in 1699 (CACC DLONS/W/6/1)

Hodskinson and Donald’s Plan of Cumberland, 1774

Plan of Akebank Tenement and Harras Park, nd (CACW YDX 304/14/4)

Plan of Harris Park, c. 1810 (CACW YDX 304/13/8)

Wood’s Plan of the Borough of Whitehaven, 1830 (CACW YDX 297/8)

Creighton’s Plan of Whitehaven, 1835

Tithe Map of St Bees, 1838 (CACW YPR 42/136/2)

Moresby Tithe plan, 1838 CACW YDX 304/13/21

Whitehaven tithe map and award, 1844, 1848 (CACW YPR 9/52)

Harras Moor, Preston Common enclosure, 1847 (CACW YDX 287)

Harras Moor, enclosure map and award, 1849, 1851 (CACW YPR 42/131)

Conveyance of property from John Todhunter to George Head Head (CACW YDX 660/2/3)

Notice of mortgage to John Todhunter & Ann Todhunter from George Head Head (CACW YDX 660/2/23)

Plan of proposed enclosure of Harras Moor (Preston Common), 1847 (CACW YDX 287/1)

Preston Quarter: plan of lands to be enclosed on Harras Moor, 1850 (CACW DBH/36/5/1/7)

Ordnance Survey Map First Edition, 25 inch to 1 mile scale, 1863

Plans of Harras Moor Race and Steeple Chase Course (CACW DH/217/3)

Brodie’s Plan of the Parliamentary and Municipal Borough of Whitehaven, 1894 (CACW Whitehaven map sleeve)

Ordnance Survey Map Second Edition, 25 inch to 1 mile scale, 1899

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 26 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Ordnance Survey Map Third Edition, 25 inch to 1 mile scale, 1925

1962 Ordnance Survey map

6.2 Secondary Sources

Barrowclough D 2010, Prehistoric Cumbria, The History Press: Port Stroud

Bassetlaw District Council 2011, A Guide to Heritage Impact Assessments

Burkett, M.E. 1995, Read’s Point of View: Paintings of the Cumbrian Countryside, Mathias Read, 1669‐1747, Skiddaw Press: Cockermouth

Buschmann, A, 2016, ‘Harras Moor, Whitehaven, Cumbria: heritage impact assessment’, unpublished grey literature report by Wardell Armstrong Archaeology (CP11749)

Copeland Council 2013, Copeland Local Plan 2013‐2028: Adopted Core Strategy and Development Management Policies

Cranstone Consultants 2007, Whitehaven Coast Archaeological Survey, study unpublished study commissioned by the National Trust (text available online through Archaeological Data Service website, accessed 3rd February 2017)

Cumbria County Council nd, Extensive Urban Survey, Archaeological Assessment Report: Whitehaven, Cumbria County Council and English Heritage: Kendal

DCLG 2014, Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework, Department of Communities and Local Government: London

DCLG 2012, National Planning Policy Framework, Department of Communities and Local Government: London

DEFRA 1997, The Hedgerow Regulations 1997: A Guide to the Law and Good Practice, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: London

English Heritage 2010, Understanding Place: Historic Area Assessments in a Planning and Development Context, English Heritage: Swindon

English Heritage 2011, Understanding Place: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management, English Heritage: London

English Heritage 2012, The Setting of Heritage Assets, English Heritage: London

English Heritage nd, Valuing Places: Good Practice in Conservation Areas, English Heritage: Swindon

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 27 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Fisher, R, nd, ‘The Whitehaven Sewerage System’, unpublished document, photocopy held in WAA research folders

Fletcher, I. 1878, ‘The Archaeology of the West Cumberland Coal Trade’, in, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 1878, volume 3, 30, pages 266‐313

Hay, D, 1979, Whitehaven: an illustrated history, Michael Moon: Whitehaven

Mannix, W. and Whellan, W, 1847, History, Gazetteer and Directory of Cumberland, 1974 republication, Michael Moon: Whitehaven

Marshall, J.D. and Davies‐Sheil, M, 1977, The Industrial Archaeology of the Lake Counties, Second Edition, Beckermet: Cumbria

Newman, C.E, 2014, ‘Mapping the Late Medieval and Post Medieval Landscape of Cumbria’, thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Newcastle University

Prevost, W.A.J, 1965, ‘A Trip to Whitehaven to visite the coalworks there in 1739, by Sir John Clerk, transcribed and edited by W.A.J. Provost’, in, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 1065, volume 15, new series, pages 305‐319

Rollinson W, 1996, A History of Cumberland and Westmorland, Butler and Tanner Ltd: London

Routledge, A.W, 2002, History and Guide: Whitehaven, Tempus Books: Stroud

Sibson, F, 2008, The History of the West Cumberland Potteries, self‐published

6.3 Internet Sources

BGS 2017, http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html, accessed 30th January 2017

British History Online 2017, http://www.british‐history.ac.uk/n‐westmorland‐ records/vol7/pp32‐33, accessed 3rd February 2017

Family History Whitehaven 2017, http://www.curiousfox.com/vill100/Cumberland59490_1.html, accessed 31st January 2017

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 28 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Greyhound Derby 2017, http://www.greyhoundderby.com/Whitehaven%20Racecourse%20(i).html, accessed 31st January 2017

NHL 2017, https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the‐list/map‐ search?clearresults=true, accessed 30th January 2017

PastScape 2017, http://www.pastscape.org.uk/, accessed 30th January 2017

The Historical Gazetteer of England’s Place Names 2017, http://placenames.org.uk/index.php/browse/mads/epns‐deep‐21‐c‐mappedname‐ 001861, accessed 30th January 2017

Whitehaven.org.uk 2017, http://www.whitehaven.org.uk/races.html, accessed 31st January 2017

6.4 Other Sources

Brennand, M, 2017, pers. comm., email communication accompanying data from Cumbria County Council’s Historic Environment Record, 3rd February 2017

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 29 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

APPENDIX 1: HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT TABLES

Table 1 Measuring Significance

Significance Designation Asset types and justification Preferred response to negative impact

International Non‐statutorily designated World Heritage Site (NPPF s132) Avoid negative impact where heritage assets asset contributes to the WHS’s defined outstanding universal values (NPPF s138)

National Statutorily designated Scheduled monuments, grade I and II* listed Avoid negative impact heritage assets buildings (NPPF s132). Grade A Listed Buildings in Scotland

National Non‐statutorily designated Registered battlefields, grade I and II* Avoid negative impact heritage assets Registered Parks and Gardens (NPPF s132)

National Non‐designated heritage Assets where assessment for designation is Avoid negative impact assets of demonstrable pending, assets that have been assessed as equivalence to a scheduled being capable of designation but have not monument (NPPF s138) been designated at the SoS discretion, assets worthy of designation but which are outside the scope of the 1979 Act (NPPF s139)

District or County Statutorily designated Grade II listed buildings (NPPF s132). Grade Limit negative impact (avoid heritage assets B Listed Buildings in Scotland substantial harm) and (Higher) mitigate

District or County Non‐statutorily designated Conservation area (NPPF s127), grade II Limit negative impact (avoid heritage assets registered park and garden (NPPF s132) substantial harm) and (Higher) mitigate

District or County Non‐designated heritage Any extant heritage assets (NPPF s115) Limit negative impact and assets within a national mitigate (Lesser) park or AONB

District or County Non‐designated heritage Heritage assets placed on a local planning Limit negative impact and assets authority list (NPPG). Grade C Listed mitigate (Lesser) Buildings in Scotland

District or County Non‐designated heritage Any area of potential listed in a local plan Limit negative impact and assets (NPPG) mitigate (Lesser)

District or County Non‐designated heritage Historic Hedgerow as defined under the Limit negative impact and assets Hedgerow Regulations 1997 mitigate (Lesser)

Local Non‐designated heritage Any extant heritage assets outside of a Mitigate assets national park or AONB.

Negligible Non‐designated heritage Heritage assets recorded in the HER that are No action assets no longer extant, individual findspots or structures of no heritage value

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 30 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Table 2: Establishing the Magnitude of Impact Magnitude of Heritage Asset Impact Archaeological Remains Historic Buildings Historic Landscapes (Archaeological Interest) (Architectural/Artistic Interest and/or (Historic Interest) Historic Interest) Loss  Change to most or all  Change to key historic building Major change to historic landscape character resulting key archaeological elements, such that the resource from: materials, such that is totally altered  Changes to most key historic landscape elements, the resource is totally  Comprehensive changes to setting parcels or components altered  Extreme visual effects  Comprehensive changes to setting  Major change to noise or change to sound quality  Major changes to use or access

Substantial  Changes to many key  Changes to many key historic Moderate change to historic landscape character archaeological building elements, such that the resulting from: materials, such that resource is significantly modified  Changes to many key historic landscape elements, the resource is clearly  Changes to setting of an historic parcels or components modified building such that it is significantly   Considerable changes modified Visual change to many key aspects of the historic to setting that affect landscape the character of the  Noticeable differences in noise or sound quality asset  Considerable changes to use or access

Less than  Changes to key  Change to key historic building Limited change to historic landscape character resulting substantial archaeological elements, such that the asset is from: materials, such that slightly different  Changes to few key historic landscape elements, the asset is slightly  Changes to setting of an historic parcels or components altered building such that it is noticeably   Slight changes to changed Slight visual changes to few key aspects of the setting historic landscape  Limited changes to noise levels or sound quality  Slight changes to use or access

Minor  Very minor changes  Slight changes to historic buildings Very small change to historic landscape character to archaeological elements or setting that hardly resulting from: materials affect it  Very minor changes to key historic landscape elements, parcels or components  Virtually unchanged visual effects  Very slight changes to noise levels or sound quality  Very slight changes to use or access

No change No change

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 31 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Table 3 Impact on Heritage Significance

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 32 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

APPENDIX 2: LIST OF HERITAGE ASSETS

Heritage Assets within the 800m search radius (study area): Asset Reference Site Name Description Grid Reference Period No. 1 PastScape 8614 Coin findspot A number of Roman coins were found when making “a new road near Moresby 298000,520000 Roman Hall some 20 years ago” (c. 1840), “the earliest Domitian, the latest, Constans” 2 PastScape 8619 Uncertain findspot A bronze ornament with two rivets at the back was found at Moresby, c. 1898 298000,520000 Unknown 3 PastScape 8626 Tile findspot A Roman tile was found at Moresby, referenced in a 1977 text 299000,520000 Roman 4 HER 2752; David Pit Pit shafts on Harras Moor, marked as ‘old coal shaft’ and ‘David Pit’ on First 298860,519220 Post Medieval PastScape 1540960 Edition Ordnance Survey map. According to PastScape record, a chimney remains at David Pit 5 PastScape World War II Site of a Royal Observer Corps monitoring post; part of an extensive network 298610,518880 Modern 1414060; HER Monitoring Post to report hostile aircraft and nuclear attacks. Opened 1961, closed 1991. 16531 Harras Moor Watch Tower said to have been destroyed by 1997 6 PastScape 1494602 World War II Air Site of Second World War air raid shelters, visible as structures and earthworks 297836,519293 Modern Raid Shelter on aerial photographs but not visible on the ground 7 PastScape 1494607 World War II Air Site of Second World War air raid shelters, visible as structures and earthworks 297684,518474 Modern Raid Shelter on aerial photographs but not visible on the ground 8 PastScape 1494620 World War II Potential Second World War weapons pit visible as an earthwork on aerial 297705,519222 Modern Weapons Pit photographs. Built over by 1990 9 PastScape 1494728 Quarry Harras Park Quarry, visible as an earthwork on aerial photographs and still 297932,518294 Post Medieval shown on 1990 Ordnance Survey mapping 10 PastScape 541340 Church of St James A church, built in 1752 with a square stone west tower, Tuscan pillars and a 297680,518430 Post Medieval round arched entrance. Restored in 1871 and altered in 1886. Chapel added 1921 and baptistery in 1922. Included on Copeland’s List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 33 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Asset Reference Site Name Description Grid Reference Period No. 11 PastScape 1413046 Searchlight Battery Site of a Second World War searchlight battery 298400,519500 Modern 12 PastScape 1417653 Royal Observer World War Two R.O.C Post reporting to 29 Group (Lancaster); termed a granite 298600,518700 Modern Corps Post site, i.e. equipped with flares (went underground in 1959). Since destroyed 13 HER 11950; Davy Pit Colliery Site of Davy pit, a walk‐in mine. Also a shaft at NX 9886 1922 (HER 2752). Davy 299020,519190 Post Medieval PastScape 1540960 Pit was opened in 1763 and was the first pit to utilise steam power to operate the winding gear, and atmospheric engine being installed. OAN’s walkover survey in 2003 noted an associated disused reservoir, with drainage ditch and remains of a retaining wall 14 HER 4601 Scilly Bank Kiln Site named Brick Field on First Edition Ordnance Survey map, perhaps a site 299250,519400 Post Medieval place name for obtaining clay for firing, rather than the site of a kiln, probably associated with the Scilly Bank Brick and Tile Kiln to the south documented in 1883 (Asset 17) 15 HER 11947 Lady Pit Colliery The site of Lady pit, sunk in 1765 and worked until after 1788. After it closed, 298040,518700 Post Medieval it became a place of manufacturing ‘oil of vitriol, then soap, next of sal ammoniac’ then black and yellow teapots by 1850 (HER 19960) 16 HER 19948 George Pit Colliery Site of George Pit, sunk in 1777, and still working in 1788 but no longer marked 298290,519070 Post Medieval by Ordnance Survey 17 HER 11951 Scilly Bank Pottery Site of pottery established in 1754 by the Lowther family, who employed 299180,519100 Post Medieval Aaron Wedgewood and gained permission to construct a mill and kiln and extract clay from four commons around Whitehaven. Marked as ‘old’ on First Edition Ordnance Survey map 18 HER 11952 Little William Pit Air Site of an air shaft, possibly a vent associated with the nearest mine, which 299230,519050 Post Medieval Shaft was Little William at NGR NY 2992 5190 19 HER 11953 Roundclose Quarry Site of Roundclose Quarry 299430,519100 Post Medieval

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 34 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Asset Reference Site Name Description Grid Reference Period No. 20 HER 11960 Lady Pit Pottery Site of a bone and manure works and also the site of Lady Pit Pottery as marked 298000,518800 Post Medieval on First Edition Ordnance Survey map, 1863. Closed in the 1850s (Sibson 2008, 171), though marked on First Edition Ordnance Survey map still 21 HER 11961 Harras Moor Site of Harras Moor Racecourse and Wrestling Ring, perhaps opened in 1852 298950,518600 Post Medieval Racecourse and (Greyhound Derby 2017), though proposed in 1822 (HER 11961 information; Wrestling Ring typo?). Possible connection between this and a reference from the Cumberland Pacquet to a pleasure ground for North Pit (Asset 22). The final meeting was in 1890 (Greyhound Derby 2017), though it was still shown on the 1894 Whitehaven Plan by Brodie 22 HER 11963 North Pit Colliery Site of North Pit coal mine, sunk in 1773 and worked until after 1788. ‘Old John 298620,518460 Post Medieval and I’, a series of articles written in the Cumbria Pacquet in 1850, mentions a pleasure ground built for the workers of North Pit by an Act of Parliament (Asset 21; confer Asset 25) 23 HER 12841 The Flatt/ In 1675 a mansion known as The Flatt, owned by Sir George Fletcher of Hutton, 297720,517840 Post Medieval Whitehaven Castle; was bought, improved and extended by Sir John Lowther. In 1769 it was rebuilt Grade II listed in its present form by Sir James Lowther who renamed it Whitehaven Castle. building A number of associated buildings lay to the immediate south by 1774 24 HER 12917 Harras Pit Site of Harras Pit coal mine. Sunk in 1705 and by 1716 was producing 200 tons 298350,518470 Post Medieval of coal a week (Routledge 2002, 39). It was abandoned by 1781 (ibid, 43) 25 HER 19949 Harras Moor This field is marked ‘recreation ground’ on a plan of 1849 and includes a 298754,518428 Post Medieval Recreation Ground rectangular pond. Thought to have been built by the miners of North Pit (Asset 22), and may have been replaced by the racetrack (Asset 21) 26 HER 19951 Round Close Brick A group of buildings marked ‘old brick kilns’ shown on the Second Edition 299143,518892 Post Medieval Kilns Ordnance Survey map

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 35 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Asset Reference Site Name Description Grid Reference Period No. 27 HER 19952 Scilly Bank A boundary stone is marked on the 1838 Tithe map, though it is not known if 299099,519045 Unknown Boundary Stone it still survives 28 HER 19953 Scilly Bank Brick A tile works marked at this location on the 1838 tithe map. On the First Edition 299080,519180 Post Medieval and Tile Kiln Ordnance Survey map it is shown as a brick kiln and includes large buildings. Several associated features were noted during walkover and topographic survey 29 HER 19954 Toll Bar Cottage Remains of a level, shown on First Edition Ordnance Survey Map, were found 298957,519184 Post Medieval Level during a topographic survey in 2004 30 HER 40448 Moss Wood Linear parchmark, visible in aerial photographs, suggested to have been a 299920,516520 Unknown Parchmark Roman road, but follows exactly the western of two powerlines, suggesting it may not be archaeological 31 Newman 2014, Harras Park The site of a monastic grange, one of 19 along the Cumberland coast 298623,518923 Medieval 151; Grainger and monastic grange associated with Holm Cultram. This block of land was in existence by 1220 Collingwood 1929, when it was granted to the abbey by Adam de Harraus, who apparently had a 32‐33; Plan of house there. The boundary is clearly identifiable still on a Plan of Harris Park, Harris Park c.1810 (CACW YDX 304/13/8) 32 Hodskinson and Akebank; Aikbank Akebank, a building in existence by 1699, as noted in an Andrew Pelin Survey 298381,519445 Post Medieval Donald 1774; 1699 (CACC DLONS/W/6/1) as a tenement. A plan of a similar date shows an Survey associated windmill (CACW YDX 304/14/4; Figure 5). ‘Aikbank’ on First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1863. Area since redeveloped for housing. Windmills were very rare in Cumbria (Cranstone Consultants nd) 33 1699 survey; late ‘Well Close’ and A building is shown within ‘well close’ on a late 17th/ early 18th century plan 298869,518964 Post Medieval 17th/ early 18th building (CACW YDX 304/14/4) and ‘well close’ is also noted on a written account of a century plan survey by Andrew Pelin in 1699 (CACC DLONS/W/6/1)

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 36 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Asset Reference Site Name Description Grid Reference Period No. 34 1699 survey; late ‘Whinny Harras’ A building is shown within ‘whinny harras’ on a late 17th/ early 18th century 298479,518474 Post Medieval 17th/ early 18th building plan (CACW YDX 304/14/4) and ‘whinny harras’ is also noted on a written century plan; 1810 account of a survey by Andrew Pelin in 1699 (CACC DLONS/W/6/1). Seems to plan of Harris Park be the same as ‘K’ on an 1810 plan (CACW YDX 304/13/8), ‘Harras Yeat’, and buildings on the north –west side of the road entrance to Harras Park farm on the First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1863 at Low Harras. Existing cottage may be remains 35 1810 plan of Harris Waggonway A network of waggonways is shown linking the pits in ‘Harris Park’ in c. 1810, 298662,519386 Post Medieval Park network (CACW YDX 304/13/8) much of it now Victoria Road, but it digressed from an earlier route separating Aikbank and Harras Park which was to the north. Must date to the origin of the pits in this area, mainly sunk in the 1760s and 70s 36 1810 plan of Harris Harras Side A building shown to the south‐east of the present proposed development site 298785,518894 Post Medieval Park on a c. 1810 plan (CACW YDX 304/13/8) and labelled ‘Harras Side’ on accompanying table. A building is marked at this spot on Ordnance Survey mapping and a farmstead still stands at the same location 37 1810 plan of Harris Waggonwayside; A building shown to the north‐west of the present proposed development site 298326,519280 Post Medieval Park Bleachgreen on a c. 1810 plan (CACW YDX 304/13/8) and labelled ‘Waggonwayside’ on accompanying table, suggesting it to be contemporaneous with the waggonway network (Asset 35). A building is marked at this spot on Ordnance Survey mapping, labelled ‘Bleachgreen’ and a building still stands at the same location

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 37 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

Asset Reference Site Name Description Grid Reference Period No. 38 1699 survey; late Field Boundary Southern field boundary of present proposed development site matches that 298553,519057 Post Medieval 17th/ early 18th shown on a c. 1810 plan (CACW YDX 304/13/8), and that shown on a late 17th/ century plan; 1810 early 18th century plan (CACW YDX 304/14/4), known as Long Rush in 1699 plan of Harris Park (CACC DLONS/W/6/1). The site visit noted it to be a surviving Cumbrian kest, and as such it may be protected under Hedgerow Regulations 1997 39 Late 17th/ early 18th Former Field The site of a former field boundary within the proposed development site is 298547,519112 Post Medieval century plan; 1810 Boundary shown on a c. 1810 plan (CACW YDX 304/13/8), and not on a late 17th/ early plan of Harris Park; 18th century plan (CACW YDX 304/14/4), so must relate to 18th century First Edition OS reorganisation/ enclosure in the area. This boundary was no longer in map 1863 existence by 1863

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 38 February 2017

Messrs Bowe Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven Heritage Impact Assessment

APPENDIX 3: FIGURES

CL11940/RPT‐001 Page 39 February 2017

297000/519000 300000/519000

0 1km

PROJECT: Land adjacent to Elizabeth Crescent, KEY: Whitehaven, Cumbria CLIENT: Messrs Bowe Site location SCALE: 1:25,000 at A4 DRAWN BY: AB

Wardell Armstrong CHECKED BY: AB Archaeology DATE: February 2017 Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on 2017 behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery KĨĨŝĐĞ͘ΞƌŽǁŶĐŽƉLJƌŝŐŚƚ͘ REPORT No: CL11940 All rights reserved. Licence number 100058076 Figure 1: Site location. Wardell Armstrong Archaeology 2017

PROJECT: Land adjacent to Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven, Cumbria

CLIENT: Messrs Bowe

SCALE: 1:2,500 at A4 DRAWN BY: AB CHECKED BY: AB DATE: February 2017 298400/519100 298800/519100 KEY:

Site boundary

Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery KĨĨŝĐĞ͘ΞƌŽǁŶĐŽƉLJƌŝŐŚƚ͘ All rights reserved. Licence number 100058076

REPORT No:

0 100m CL11940

Figure 2: Detailed site location.