Botany Bay, Chorley, Lancashire Heritage Desk-Based Assessment February 2021

No part of this report is to be copied in any way without prior written consent.

Every effort is made to provide detailed and accurate information, however, Orion Heritage Ltd cannot be held responsible for errors or inaccuracies within this report.

1 Report Heritage Desk-Based Assessment

Site Botany Bay, Chorley, Lancashire

Date February 2021

Planning Authority Chorley Borough Council

Site Centred At SD 590 193

Prepared and Approved By Dr Rob Smith (CMIfA)

Report Status Final

Issue Date February 2021

Orion Ref PN1427

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

2 Contents

Executive Summary

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Statutory and Planning Policy Framework 3.0 Archaeological and Historical Background

4.0 Proposed Development and Predicted Impact on Heritage Assets

5.0 Summary and Conclusions

Sources Consulted

List of Illustrations

Figure 1 Site Location

Figure 2 HER Data Plot

Figure 3 1577 Saxton’s County Map

Figure 4 1806 Cary’s County Map

Figure 5 1818 Greenwood’s County Map

Figure 6 1839 Chorley Tithe Map

Figure 7 1849 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map

Figure 8 1895 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map

Figure 9 1912 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map

Figure 10 1930 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map

Figure 11 1938 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map

Figure 12 1955 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map

Figure 13 1962 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map

Figure 14 1973/5 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map

Figure 15 1984 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map

Figure 16 1992/3 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map

Figure 17 2006 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map

Figure 18 2013 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

3 Timescales Used in This Report

Prehistoric Palaeolithic 450,000 -12,000 BC Mesolithic 12,000 - 4,000 BC Neolithic 4,000 - 2,200 BC Bronze Age 2,200 - 700 BC Iron Age 700 - AD 43

Historic Roman 43 - 410AD Saxon/Early Medieval 410 - 1066AD Medieval 1066 - 1485AD Post Medieval 1486 - 1901AD Modern 1901 - Present Day

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

4 Executive Summary

This heritage desk-based assessment considers land at Botany Bay, Chorley, Lancashire. In accordance with government policy (National Planning Policy Framework), this assessment draws together the available archaeological, historic, topographic and land-use information in order to clarify the heritage significance and archaeological potential of the site.

The assessment has concluded that the site has low/nil potential for archaeological remains from the prehistoric, Roman, Saxon, Medieval and Post-Medieval periods.

Canal Mill is a non-designated asset within the site boundary which is considered to be of local archaeological interest. There is also some potential for the discovery of sub-surface remains associated with the Mill to be present.

A possible farmstead (Cabbage Hall) and Hope Mill, both of which are 19th century in date, are recorded within the site boundary.

It is considered that any archaeological assets within the site boundary will have either been severely truncated or completely destroyed by previous modern development.

In light of the above, it is possible that the only additional archaeological work which may be required by the planning authority’s archaeological advisor is the building recording of Canal Mill prior to development. It is suggested that this can be undertaken as a condition of consent.

This assessment concludes that development of the site would not have any impact on designated assets (Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Conservation Areas).

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

5 1.0 Introduction

1.1 This heritage desk-based assessment considers land at Botany Bay, Chorley, Lancashire (Figure 1). It has been prepared by Orion Heritage on behalf of First Investment Real Estates Management.

1.2 The site (herafter referred to as the ‘study site’) is located at grid reference SD 590 193.

1.3 In accordance with the Standard and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists 2014), the assessment draws together available information on designated and non-designated heritage assets, topographic and land-use information so as to establish the potential for non- designated archaeological assets within the study site. The assessment includes the results of a site survey, an examination of published and unpublished records, and charts historic land-use through a map regression exercise.

1.4 The assessment enables relevant parties to assess the significance of heritage/ archaeological assets on and close to the site and considers the potential for hitherto undiscovered archaeological assets, thus enabling potential impacts on assets to be identified along with the need for design, civil engineering or archaeological solutions.

1.5 The study area used in this assessment is a 500 m radius from the boundary of the site (Figure 2).

Location, Topography and Geology

1.6 The study site is bounded by the M6 motorway to the west, the A674 to the north, the Leeds-Liverpool Canal to the east and Blackburn Brow to the south.

1.7 The underlying solid geology of the site comprises Mudstone, Siltstone and Sandstone of Rossendale Formation. This underlies the superficial geology of Clay, Sand and Gravel Alluvium across the majority of the site. Sand and Gravel Glaciofluvial Deposits lie in the north-east of the site. Devensian Till lies along the western boundary and in the far north-west of the site.

1.8 The majority of the site comprises made ground associated with the large car park to the north and south of Canal Mill, along with various access tracks. The north of the site is rough grassland.

1.9 Canal Mill was originally built as a canal-side spinning mill in 1856. The ground floor of the five-storey building was used for carding, and the upper four floors used for spinning. By 1863, the complex comprised a mill, gasworks, stables, coach house and warehouse. By the early 1900s, a narrow gauge railway was in use on the canal-side of the mill to the facilitate the unloading of coal from canal boats to the boiler house. In 1930, a new carding shed was built. A staff canteen was also erected adjacent to the detached three-storey warehouse. In 1939, three air raid shelters were built on the canal-side of the mill. The mill remained in production until the late 1950s. In the early 1960s, it was used for the rearing of broiler fowl. The mill chimney, staff canteen, three- storey warehouse and offices were demolished in the late 1960s. In 1968, the north side of the mill was extended by erecting a workshop for truck repairs. In 1994, it was converted into a tourist attraction, and restored. The spinning mill survives largely extant, but the steam-power plant has been removed.

1.10 The natural topography of the site is primarily flat at c. 90 m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD), with a slope rising to slightly higher ground in the north at c. 94 m AOD.

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

6 Approach and Background to Report

1.11 The planning application for Botany Bay Business Park is a detailed planning application. Accordingly, the planning application is supported by a set of detailed drawings prepared by the applicant’s architect, MCAU. These depict key details of the proposed development including access, layout, footprint and floorspace of proposed buildings, building heights, uses of buildings, circulation roads, light and heavy goods vehicle parking and manoeuvring areas, servicing arrangements and areas of landscaping.

1.12 In addition, the application is supported by a suite of documents, including this one, which address a number of specific topic areas, so as to demonstrate that the development proposals are acceptable in the context of usual planning, development and land use considerations.

1.13 The purpose of this report is to show that the proposed development is acceptable with regard to archaeology and heritage.

1.14 In so doing it can be confirmed that, in addition to this report demonstrating that the proposed development is acceptable with regard to archaeology and heritage, the report has also had regard to the key findings and conclusions of the environmental statement (“ES”) and its technical appendices that set out the findings of an environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) of a previously granted and still extant planning permisison for the site, namely, planning permisison ref no. 17/00715/OUTMAJ, granted in October 2019. This was for an extensive retail development in the form of a factory outlet village and related uses.

1.15 We understand that it was agreed in principle during pre-application discussions on the current proposals with the council, led by JFP, the applicant’s planning consultant, that the new proposals for the site, with specific reference to associated impacts and effects of the development, remained in broad conformity with the parameters of the approved ES, and that as such there would be no requirement to produce either an addendum to the approved ES that supported planning permisison 17/00715/OUTMAJ or a new ES.

1.16 It was further agreed that an ES Compliance Statement would be submitted demonstrating that the revised proposals remain in compliance with the assessment of effects and associated mitigation set out in the approved ES. We understand that an ESCS has been produced by JFP and has been submitted in support of the planning application. We have contributed to the ESCS, specifically with regard to archaeology and heritage.

1.17 In essence and building on the points made above, the key matters we have focused on in our report are the differences in the impacts and effects of the of the current scheme from that which was previously granted under planning permission ref no. 17/00715/OUTMAJ. As is demonstrated in the conclusions of our report, the impacts and effects of the current development when compared to those associated with the still extant permission (ref no. 17/00715/OUTMAJ) are either less than or unchanged and as such further additional information in the form of either an addendum to that ES or a new ES is not justified. This is detailed and key findings and conclusions on the same are set out in our report. And a summary of the same is set out in the ESCS.

1.18 This approach is explained in and supported by Section 8(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 [EIA Regulations (2017)] which states that where it appears to the relevant planning authority that environmental information already before them is adequate to assess the environmental effects of a development they shall take that information into account in their decision on subsequent consents.

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

7 2.0 Planning Background And Development Plan Framework

Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Areas Act 1979

2.1 The Ancient Monuments & Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (as amended) protects the fabric of Scheduled Monuments, but does not afford statutory protection to their settings.

Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

2.2 The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out broad policies and obligations relevant to the protection of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas and their settings.

2.3 Section 66(1) states:

“In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.

2.4 Section 69 of the Act requires local authorities to define as conservation areas any ‘areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’ and Section 72 gives local authorities a general duty to pay special attention ‘to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area’ in exercising their planning functions. These duties are taken to apply only within a Conservation Area. The Act does not make specific provision with regard to the setting of a Conservation Area, that is provided by the policy framework outlined in below.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) & National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

2.5 Government policy in relation to the historic environment is outlined in section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF [2019]), entitled ‘Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment’. This provides guidance for planning authorities, property owners, developers and others on the conservation and investigation of heritage assets. Overall, the objectives of Section 16 of the NPPF can be summarised as seeking the:

• Delivery of sustainable development; • Understanding the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits brought by the conservation of the historic environment; • Conservation of England's heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance; and • Recognition of the contribution that heritage assets make to our knowledge and understanding of the past.

2.6 Section 12 of the NPPF recognises that intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained for the long term.

2.7 Paragraph 128 states that planning decisions should be based on the significance of the heritage asset, and that the level of detail supplied by an applicant should be proportionate to the importance of the asset and should be no more than sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal upon the significance of that asset.

2.8 Heritage Assets are defined in Annex 2 as: a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

8 planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. Heritage assets include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).

2.9 Archaeological Interest is defined as: a heritage asset which holds or potentially could hold evidence of past human activity worthy of expert investigation at some point. Heritage assets with archaeological interest are the primary source of evidence about the substance and evolution of places, and of the people and cultures that made them.

2.10 Designated Heritage Assets comprise: World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields and Conservation Areas.

2.11 Significance is defined as: the value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. This interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.

2.12 Setting is defined as: the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral.

2.13 The NPPF is supported by the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG). In relation to the historic environment, paragraph 18a-001 states that:

“Protecting and enhancing the historic environment is an important component of the National Planning Policy Framework’s drive to achieve sustainable development (as defined in Paragraphs 6-10). The appropriate conservation of heritage assets forms one of the ‘Core Planning Principles’.”

2.14 Paragraph 18a-002 makes a clear statement that any decisions relating to Listed Buildings and their settings and Conservation Areas must address the statutory considerations of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, as well as satisfying the relevant policies within the National Planning Policy Framework and the Local Plan.

2.15 Paragraph 18a-013 outlines that the assessment of the impact of a proposed development on the setting of a heritage asset needs to take into account and be proportionate to the significance of the asset being considered, and the degree to which the proposed development enhances or detracts from the significance of the asset and the ability to appreciate the significance.

2.16 The NPPG outlines that although the extent and importance of setting is often expressed in visual terms, it can also be influenced by other factors such as noise, dust and vibration. Historic relationships between places can also be an important factor stressing ties between places that may have limited or no intervisibility with each other. This may be historic as well as aesthetic connections that contribute or enhance the significance of one or more of the heritage assets.

2.17 Paragraph 18a-013 concludes:

“The contribution that setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset does not depend on there being public rights or an ability to access or experience that setting. This will vary over time and according to circumstance. When assessing any application for development which may affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities may need to consider the implications of cumulative change. They may also need to consider the fact that developments which materially detract from the asset’s significance may also damage its economic viability now, or in the future, thereby threatening its on-going conservation.”

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

9 2.18 The key test in NPPF paragraphs 132-134 is whether a proposed development will result in substantial harm or less than substantial harm. However, substantial harm is not defined in the NPPF. Paragraph 18a-017 of the NPPG provides additional guidance on substantial harm. It states:

“What matters in assessing if a proposal causes substantial harm is the impact on the significance of the heritage asset. As the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear, significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. Whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision taker, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the policy in the National Planning Policy Framework. In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed.”

2.19 Paragraph 134 of the NPPF outlines that where a proposed development results in less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset, the harm arising should be weighed against the public benefits accruing from the proposed development. Paragraph 18a-020 of the NPPG outlines what is meant by public benefits:

“Public benefits may follow from many developments and could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress as described in the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 7). Public benefits should flow from the proposed development. They should be of a nature or scale to be of benefit to the public at large and should not just be a private benefit. However, benefits do not always have to be visible or accessible to the public in order to be genuine public benefits.”

2.20 In considering any planning application for development, the planning authority will be mindful of the framework set by government policy, in this instance the NPPF, by current Development Plan Policy and by other material considerations.

Local Planning Policy

2.21 The relevant Local Development Framework for the area is provided by the Central Lancashire Core Strategy (2012), jointly prepared by the South Ribble, Preston and Chorley Councils. This supersedes any earlier ‘saved’ polices in the Local Plan. The relevant policy relating to archaeology and built heritage is as follows:

Policy 16: Heritage Assets

Protect and seek opportunities to enhance heritage assets, by:

• Safeguarding heritage assets from inappropriate development. • Supporting development or other initiatives where they protect and enhance the local character, setting, management and historic significance of heritage assets, with particular support for initiatives that will improve any assets that are recognised as being in poor condition. • Identifying and adopting a local list of heritage assets for each authority.

Guidance

Historic Environment Good Practice Advice In Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (Historic England 2015)

2.22 The purpose of this document is to provide information to assist local authorities, planning and other consultants, owners, applicants and other interested parties in

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

10 implementing historic environment policy in the NPPF and NPPG. It outlines a six stage process to the assembly and analysis of relevant information relating to heritage assets potentially affected by a proposed development:

• Understand the significance of the affected assets; • Understand the impact of the proposal on that significance; • Avoid, minimise and mitigate impact in a way that meets the objectives of the NPPF; • Look for opportunities to better reveal or enhance significance; • Justify any harmful impacts in terms of the sustainable development objective of conserving significance and the need for change; and • Offset negative impacts on aspects of significance by enhancing others through recording, disseminating and archiving archaeological and historical interest of the important elements of the heritage assets affected.

Historic Environment Good Practice Advice In Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England 2015)

2.23 Historic England’s Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 provides guidance on the management of change within the setting of heritage assets.

2.24 The document restates the definition of setting as outlined in Annex 2 of the NPPF. Setting is also described as being a separate term to curtilage, character and context; while it is largely a visual term, setting, and thus the way in which an asset is experienced, can also be affected by noise, vibration, odour and other factors. The document makes it clear that setting is not a heritage asset, nor is it a heritage designation, though land within a setting may itself be designated. Its importance lies in what the setting contributes to the significance of a heritage asset.

2.25 The Good Practice Advice Note sets out a five staged process for assessing the implications of proposed developments on setting:

1. Identification of heritage assets which are likely to be affected by proposals; 2. Assessment of whether and what contribution the setting makes to the significance of a heritage asset; 3. Assessing the effects of proposed development on the significance of a heritage asset; 4. Maximising enhancement and reduction of harm on the setting of heritage assets; and 5. Making and documenting the decision and monitoring outcomes

2.26 The guidance reiterates the NPPF in stating that where developments affecting the setting of heritage assets results in a level of harm to significance, this harm, whether substantial or less then substantial, should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

11 3.0 Archaeological and Historical Background

3.1 The locations of sites mentioned in the text are shown on Figure 2.

Non-Designated Heritage Assets

Prehistoric

3.2 No records relating to the site are held by the Lancashire Historic Environment Record (HER), and given the extremely sparse regional pattern of Palaeolithic occupation and the effects of the Anglian Glaciation, no evidence would be expected.

3.3 The HER contains no records for the Mesolithic or Neolithic period. The very low density of artefactual and other evidence locally points to a conclusion that the site remained untouched woodland during these periods.

3.4 A nil potential for evidence from the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic periods is therefore identified on the site.

Bronze Age/Iron Age

3.5 The HER holds no records from these periods in or within the surroundings of the site, and the site is likely to have remained woodland.

3.6 A low/nil potential is therefore identified for Bronze Age and Iron Age evidence on the site.

Roman

3.7 No records relating to the site or its surroundings from this period is held by the HER.

3.8 A low/nil potential is therefore identified for Roman evidence on the site.

Saxon/Medieval

3.9 The HER does not hold any records for the site or its surroundings from this period; it is likely that any settlement was concentrated within the centre of the town, some distance away from the site.

3.10 A low/nil potential is therefore identified for evidence of Saxon/Medieval settlement.

Post-Medieval/Modern

3.11 There are several non-designated assets, all of 19th century date, recorded within the site:

• A possible farmstead (Cabbage Hall) (PRN21894 on Figure 2); • The extant Canal Mill (PRN19664 on Figure 2); and • Hope Mill (PRN19665 on Figure 2).

3.12 The Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) Programme (Ede and Darlington 2002) records the centre and south of the site as ‘Modern Development’, and the north as ‘Ancient Enclosure’.

3.13 Chorley is represented on the earliest maps of the county, including Saxton's map of 1577 (Figure 3). However, this map does not show any detail of the site.

3.14 More detail is shown on Cary’s map of 1806 (Figure 4) and Greenwood’s map of 1818 (Figure 5), both of which highlight the historic road pattern and the Leeds-Liverpool

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

12 Canal. Greenwood’s map also shows two buildings in the centre of the site and the north, the latter being Cabbage Hall (PRN21894 on Figure 2) (denoted on later maps).

3.15 The Chorley Tithe map of 1839 (Figure 6) indicates that the site comprises twelve fields (numbers 12, 60, 62, 63, 65, 111, 111a, 111b, 112, 113, 1878 and 1879) and a house and garden (61). The landowners were Susannah Catherine Sady Hoghton (12), Howarden Henry Farzackerly (60, 62, 63 and 65) and Catherine Macelle Gillibrand (111, 111a, 111b, 112, 113, 1878 and 1879). The land is described as a mixture of arable and meadow. Moss Lane (named Halliwell Lane on subsequent maps) bounds the site to the west, fields abut the north, the Leeds-Liverpool Canal bounds the west and Botany Brow abuts the south.

3.16 The Ordnance Survey map of 1849 (Figure 7) shows a building in the far south of the site (named on subsequent maps as Hope Mill). Some of the field boundaries in the centre of the site have been removed in order to create a large field. Several footpaths run across the north of the site.

3.17 The Ordnance Survey 1895 edition (Figure 8) indicates Canal Mill in the centre of the site. An additional building is located within the south. A viaduct carrying a railway line bisects the south of the site.

3.18 There is no change between the Ordnance Survey 1895 edition (Figure 8), and the Ordnance Survey maps of 1912 (Figure 9), 1930 (Figure 10), 1938 (Figure 11) and 1955 (Figure 12).

3.19 The Ordnance Survey map of 1962 (Figure 13) shows several paths and drains running across the north and centre of the site. One of the buildings in the south of the site is (presumably) no longer extant, and has been replaced by a building of considerably smaller size.

3.20 The Ordnance Survey 1973 edition (Figure 14) indicates that Cabbage Hall is no longer extant, along with many of the footpaths and drains in the north of the site. The outbuildings associated with Canal Mill have been removed. The buildings in the south of the site are no longer evident. A field boundary in the north of the site is not shown. The railway line has been dismantled and the viaduct is no longer extant. The M6 motorway has replaced Halliwell Lane to the west. The A678 bounds the north of the site.

3.21 The Ordnance Survey map of 1984 (Figure 15) shows that Canal Mill has increased in size and is now a Depot.

3.22 The is little change between the Ordnance Survey map of 1984 (Figure 15), and the Ordnance Survey 1992 (Figure 16), 2006 (Figure 17) and 2013 (Figure 18) editions, with the exception of an increase in the size of the Depot. Access tracks are also shown to the north and south of this building, and alongside the Canal; these presumably demarcate the areas of car parking currently evident on the site.

3.23 In light of the above information, it is considered that the Post-Medieval and Modern archaeological potential across the majority of the site is low.

Designated Heritage Assets

3.24 There are no Registered Parks and Gardens, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Registered Battlefields either within or in the surroundings of the site.

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

13 4.0 Proposed Development and Predicted Impact on Heritage Assets

Site Conditions

4.1 As described above, the majority of the site comprises made ground associated with the large car park to the north and south of Canal Mill, and various access tracks. The north of the site is rough grassland. The natural topography of the site is primarily flat at c. 90 m AOD, with a slope rising to slightly higher ground in the north at c. 94 m AOD.

The Proposed Development

4.2 The proposals are for a mixed-use development.

Potential Archaeological Impacts

4.3 There are no archaeological assets of prehistoric, Roman, Saxon, Medieval and Post- Medieval date recorded within the site or its surroundings. Therefore, the archaeological potential of the site for remains from these periods is considered to be low/nil.

4.4 Canal Mill (PRN19664 on Figure 2) is a non-designated asset within the site boundary. It is considered to be of local archaeological interest. In addition, there is some potential for the discovery of sub-surface remains (e.g. the mill chimney, warehouses and offices) associated with the Mill.

4.5 A possible farmstead (Cabbage Hall [PRN21894 on Figure 2]) and Hope Mill (PRN19665 on Figure 2), both of which are 19th century in date, are recorded within the site boundary.

4.6 It is considered that any archaeological assets within the site boundary will have either been severely truncated or completely destroyed by previous modern development.

Potential Impacts on Designated Heritage Assets

4.7 There are no Registered Parks and Gardens, Conservation Areas, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Registered Battlefields either within or in the surroundings of the site that will be impacted upon by the development proposals.

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

14 5.0 Summary and Conclusions

5.1 This heritage desk-based assessment considers land at Botany Bay, Chorley, Lancashire. In accordance with government policy (National Planning Policy Framework), this assessment draws together the available archaeological, historic, topographic and land-use information in order to clarify the heritage significance and archaeological potential of the site.

5.2 The assessment has established that the site has low/nil potential for archaeological remains from the prehistoric, Roman, Saxon, Medieval and Post-Medieval periods.

5.3 Canal Mill is a non-designated asset within the site boundary which is considered to be of local archaeological interest. There is also some potential for the discovery of sub- surface remains associated with the Mill to be present.

5.4 A possible farmstead and Hope Mill, both of which are 19th century in date, are recorded within the site boundary.

5.5 It is considered that any archaeological assets within the site boundary will have either been severely truncated or completely destroyed by previous modern development

5.6 In light of the above, it is possible that the only additional archaeological work which may be required by the planning authority’s archaeological advisor is the building recording of Canal Mill prior to development. It is suggested that this can be undertaken as a condition of consent.

5.7 This assessment concludes that development of the site would not have any impact on designated assets (Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields or Conservation Areas).

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

15 Sources

General

Chorley Library Lancashire Archives Lancashire County Record Office Lancashire Historic Environment Record

Cartographic

1577 Saxton’s County Map 1806 Cary’s County Map 1818 Greenwood’s County Map 1839 Chorley Tithe Map 1849 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map 1895 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map 1912 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map 1930 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map 1938 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map 1955 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map 1962 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map 1973 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map 1984 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map 1992 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map 1992 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map 2006 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map 2013 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map

Websites

Archaeological Data Service - ads.ahds.ac.uk British Geological Society - www.bgs.ac.uk Heritage Gateway - www.heritagegateway.org.uk Historic England - The National Heritage List for England - historicengland.org.uk/listing/the- list MAGIC - www.magic.gov.uk

Bibliographic

British Geological Survey, 1982, Geology, 1:50,000 Maps, Sheet 75, Preston.

CgMs Consulting, 2012, Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment: Botany Bay, Chorley, Lancashire.

Council for British Archaeology, 2007, An Archaeological Research Framework for North West England: Volume 2, Research Agenda and Strategy.

Ede, J. and Darlington, J., 2002, Historic Landscape Characterisation Programme.

Lancashire County Council and Egerton Lea Consultancy, 2006, Lancashire Historic Town Survey Programme: Chorley – Historic Town Assessment Report.

Botany Bay Chorley February 2021

420000

419000

418000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 9 Contains Ordnance Survey data 0

5 5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 6 3 3 3

Legend 1:12,500 at A4 Site Boundary 0 400m

Title: N Fig.1: Site Location Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 420000

419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend Site Boundary 1:6000 at A4 HER Point 0 200m

Title: N Fig.2: HER Data Plot Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 421000

420000

419000

418000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 9 Conta0 ins Ordnance Survey data

417000 5 5 Crown cop6 yright and database right 2014 3 3 3

Legend 1:20,000 at A4 Approximate Location of Site 0 500m

Title: N Fig.3: 1577 Saxton's County Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 421000

420000

419000

418000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 9 Contains Ordnance Surv0 ey data

5 5 Crown copyright and databas6 e right 2014 3 3 3

Legend 1:15,000 at A4 Approximate Location of Site 0 500m

Title: N Fig.4: 1806 Cary's County Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 421000

420000

419000

418000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

8 9 Contains Ordnance Surv0 ey data

5 5 Crown copyright and databas6 e right 2014 3 3 3

Legend 1:15000 at A4 Approximate Location of Site 0 500m

Title: N Fig.5: 1818 Greenwood's Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend 1:6,000 at A4 Site Boundary 0 200m

Title: N Fig.6: 1839 Chorley Tithe Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend 1:6,000 at A4 Site Boundary 0 200m

Title: N Fig.7: 1849 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend 1:6,000 at A4 Site Boundary 0 200m

Title: N Fig.8: 1895 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend 1:6,000 at A4 Site Boundary 0 200m

Title: N Fig.9: 1912 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend 1:6,000 at A4 Site Boundary 0 200m

Title: N Fig.10: 1930 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend 1:6,000 at A4 Site Boundary 0 200m

Title: N Fig.11: 1938 Ordnance Survey 1:10,560 Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend 1:6,000 at A4 Site Boundary 0 200m

Title: N Fig.12: 1955 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend 1:6,000 at A4 Site Boundary 0 200m

Title: N Fig.13: 1962 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend 1:6,000 at A4 Site Boundary 0 200m

Title: N Fig.14: 1973-75 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend 1:6,000 at A4 Site Boundary 0 200m

Title: N Fig.15: 1984 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend 1:6,000 at A4 Site Boundary 0 200m

Title: N Fig.16: 1992-93 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend 1:6,000 at A4 Site Boundary 0 200m

Title: N Fig.17: 2006 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley 419000 0 0 0

9 Contains Ordnance Survey data

5 Crown copyright and database right 2014 3

Legend 1:6,000 at A4 Site Boundary 0 200m

Title: N Fig.18: 2013 Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 Map Address: Botany Bay, Chorley