Project Design for an Archaeological Mitigation on Phase 3B of the Flood Risk Management Scheme.

Prepared for the Environment Agency

By M. Adams

August 2015

National Museums Liverpool Field Archaeology Unit, Pilotage Building, Mann Island, Liverpool, L3 1DG. Tel: 0151 478 4260

© Trustees of National Museums Liverpool Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 2. The Sites ...... 2 Woolston Weir (MR1) ...... 2 Bridge Lane Industrial Estate (MR2) ...... 2 Westy (ML1,2 & 3) ...... 2 3. Solid and Drift Geology, and Soils ...... 2 4. Archaeological and Historical Background ...... 2 Woolston Weir , Bridge Lane Industrial Estate (MR1 & MR2) ...... 4 Westy (ML1, 2 & 3) ...... 5 5. Review of Previous Phases of Archaeological Intervention ...... 7 6. Legislation ...... 8 7. Aims and Objectives ...... 8 8. Location of Project ...... 8 9. Methodology ...... 9 Project Roles ...... 9 Pre-Project Planning ...... 9 Archaeological Risks ...... 9 Very Low Risk Areas ...... 10 Low Risk Areas ...... 11 Medium and High Risk Areas ...... 12 General Excavation and Recording Methodologies ...... 12 10. Reporting ...... 13 11. Publication ...... 15 12. Archive Preparation and Deposition ...... 15 13. Monitoring ...... 15 14. Copyright ...... 15 15. Insurances and Health and Safety ...... 16 16. Bibliography ...... 16 17. Figures ...... 18 Appendix A: CHER Data ...... 40 A1: CHER Events ...... 40 A2: CHER Listed Buildings ...... 43 A3: CHER Locally Listed Buildings ...... 49 A 4: CHER Monuments ...... 51

Executive Summary

This document is a project design or method statement for archaeological mitigation during construction of new flood defences in Warrington, Merseyside. It has been prepared for the Environment Agency to inform the archaeological element of the works. The process of delivering this mitigation will be one of a archaeological watching brief, observation and monitoring of ground works.

The requirement for these works is indicated by a planning condition imposed on Planning Application 2011/19262 by Warrington Borough Council.

In addition to archaeological procedures it addresses the management of communications between the client, their main contractor and the archaeologists on site. It also contains proposals for the reporting and publication of the results of this and past elements of the scheme.

The elements of the project and the actions for each site are summarised below:

Phase 3b Site Works Groundworks teams to be briefed on general nature of known archaeology of the area and reporting procedures via ‘Tool–Box Talks’. Archaeologists in attendance if an obstruction is encountered which requires exploration Woolston Weir (MR1) or facilitation trenches to be excavated. Groundworks teams to be briefed on general nature of known archaeology of the area and reporting procedures via ‘Tool–Box Talks’. Archaeologists in attendance if an obstruction is encountered which requires exploration Bridge Lane Industrial Estate (MR2) or facilitation trenches to be excavated. Groundworks teams to be briefed on general nature of known archaeology of the area and reporting procedures via ‘Tool–Box Talks’. Archaeologists in attendance if an obstruction is encountered which requires exploration Westy (ML 1, 2 & 3) or facilitation trenches to be excavated.

Project Design for an Archaeological Mitigation on Phase 3A and 3 B of the Warrington Flood Risk Management Scheme

1. Introduction 1.1 This document is a project design or method statement for an archaeological watching brief during the construction of new flood defences in relation to Phase 3A and Phase 3B of the Warrington Flood Risk Management Scheme. All elements of the scheme, including those with no known archaeological implications are considered. 1.2 It has been produced by National Museums Liverpool Field Archaeology Unit (NMLFAU) for the Environment Agency (hereafter the Client) in order to satisfy condition 18 of the planning consent (planning Consent 2011/19262) which states; ‘Before development commences on any phase of development (as agreed by condition 1) a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation shall be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority. No development shall commence on that phase until written approval has been obtained for that phase. The programme of archaeological work shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved scheme’. 1.3 Full details of the proposals are given in a Written Scheme of Investigation prepared for the client in July 2014 (ch2m 2014) and in summary consist of new flood walls, raising of existing ground levels at Paddington Lock and Paddington Bank, new embankments, a new channel and ponds at the Twiggeries and a new flood embankment and flood wall and localised ground raising at Cinnamon Brow. 1.4 Phase 3 is broken down into a series of elements and will be delivered as two sub- phases; Phase 3A and Phase 3B 1.5 Phase 3A construction is presently taking place within four discrete areas 1.5 to 2 km to the east of the historic core of Warrington as follows:  Kingsway Allotments & Paddington Bank Open Space (MR4)  Paddington Bank & Paddington Lock (MR3)  Twiggeries (PBL1)  Cinnamon Brow (SP1) These works were the subject of a separate document prepared in November 2015 and are not discussed further in this document. 1.6 Construction of Phase 3B is likely to start in 2016. 1.7 At present Phase 3B consists of the following elements:  Woolston Weir (MR1)  Bridge Lane Industrial Estate (MR2)  Westy (ML1,2 & 3)

1 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

1.8 The project described in this document will help establish the nature of archaeological deposits at the site. This will mitigate the impact on archaeologically sensitive remains and generate useful information on the archaeological remains present at the site. This is consistent with national planning policy on archaeology and planning (NPPF) as well as local policies and published guidelines prepared by Historic . 1.9 The definition of an Archaeological Watching Brief is “a formal programme of observation and investigation conducted during any operation carried out for non-archaeological reasons. This will be within a specified area or site on land ….or underwater, where there is a possibility that archaeological deposits may be disturbed or destroyed. The programme will result in the preparation of a report and ordered archive.” (IFA, 2008).

2. The Sites

2.1 Each of the phases is comprised of discrete working areas which are described separately below. These areas are as delineated in drawings received from the client and shown in Figs 1 and 2.

Woolston Weir (MR1)

2.2 Woolston Weir is located c. 4.2 km to the east of Warrington town centre and the works extend for c. 400 m along the right (north) bank of the between NGR SJ 653887 and NGR SJ 656888.

Bridge Lane Industrial Estate (MR2)

2.3 Bridge Lane Industrial Estate lies on the right (north) bank of the Mersey c. 3.3 km to the east of Warrington at NGR SJ 644 888 centred. The works will extend for c. 450 m along the river bank south of the estate.

Westy (ML1,2 & 3)

2.4 Westy lies south of the Mersey and the works are centred on NGR SJ 627 881 and extend for c. 1 km between SJ 625 880 and SJ 631 881.

3. Solid and Drift Geology, and Soils

3.1 The underlying geology comprises Upper Mottled Sandstone and in the wider area the drift geology includes blown sand of the Shirdley Hill Sand Group with fluvio-glacial sand and gravel in the area around St Elphin’s Church in Howley. 3.2 The site and its immediate surroundings lie in an unsurveyed area for soils (Hall & Folland 1970).

4. Archaeological and Historical Background

4.1 The following summary was compiled from ch2m (2014), internal NMLFAU documents, data on the Historic Environment Record (CHER) and publically available sources.

2 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

4.2 There are three Listed Buildings and one Locally Listed Building within the study areas for this project (Appendix A2 and A3; Figs 1 and 2). All are located in the Martincroft area and none are affected directly or indirectly by the proposed works. 4.3 There are no World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments (SMs), Registered Parks and Gardens or Registered Battlefields along the line of the scheme. 4.4 There is little direct evidence for Palaeolithic and Mesolithic settlement from the area, though this is likely to be in large part due to the historic lack of fieldwork in the area and the likely nature of the sites which renders site location difficult. Early Prehistoric sites tend to show a bias towards areas under lain by Shirdley Hill Sand, though these are known only from chance finds and surface finds collected by fieldwalking. 4.5 The area of Warrington Bridge for instance has been a focal point for the collection of Neolithic and Bronze Age axes over time. These artefacts point either to a series of votive offerings and/ or a vibrant river-borne trade. However, there has been little evidence of direct prehistoric settlement in the area, although some upright timbers spotted in the river bed are mooted to be prehistoric in date. Features associated with exploitation of the river’s resources, such as fish traps and wooden trackways, would have been used in the prehistoric periods, and might survive as preserved organic remains amongst buried river silts. 4.6 The scheme is situated outside the known core settlement areas of the Romano-British (43 – 410 AD) and later medieval (1066 – circa 1540 AD) periods. These areas are some distance away from the scheme at Wilderspool and (Roman) 1.5 km to the south of the river and c. 1.2 km to the west of the Westy estate. The early medieval and later medieval settlements were situated north of the river and c. 1-1.5 km west of Westy. Woolston lies even further from these sites. 4.7 A Roman Road might run north from the main Roman settlement at Wilderspool, possibly crossing the Mersey by a bridge located close to Warrington Bridge (Strickland 1995). This road then followed approximately the line of the current A49 to Wigan. It is likely that the ancient ford located slightly up-river at Victoria Park continued in use until at least the early medieval period. 4.8 Evidence of Roman occupation to the north of the river Mersey is limited to a chance finds and some evidence for possible Roman roads. However, it is postulated that there may have been a Roman fort located to the north of the river controlling the river crossing at (Strickland 1995, Shaw & Clark 2003), though the evidence for this is very limited and its location unknown. A Roman brooch and mess-tin handle found at Mote Hill in 1840 might be evidence for a location centred c. 0.75 km to the west of the Twiggeries (Strickland 1995, 13). 4.9 The location and nature of early post-Roman settlement in Warrington is unknown, though the Anglo-Saxon settlement is likely to have been centred around St. Elphin’s church. However, no finds of definite known in the area of St Elphin’s or the later town and the chief archaeological features of this period are a large number of log boats discovered in the River Mersey. A total of twelve are known along a 5km stretch of the river, which have been radiocarbon dated to the 11th century (Shaw & Clark 2003). 4.10 The medieval settlement is better documented and was centred c. 1.5 km to the west of the Twiggeries. However, the Norman Castle was sited closer at Mote Hill, c. 0.8 km to the west of the Twiggeries. The site probably consisted of a Motte and Bailey and was partly excavated in the 1830’s and 1840’s before the motte was destroyed (Shaw & Clark 2003). 20th century excavations have found only limited survival on the site. 4.11 The construction of the bridge across the Mersey in the 12th century close to its present site resulted in a change in the focus of settlement which shifted westwards and by the 14th century Warrington was Warrington was one of the most important medieval towns in what was then the County Palatine of Lancashire (Shaw & Clark 2003). 4.12 Warrington was strategically placed as a bridging point on the main road from London to Scotland and hence played an important part in the Civil War from its beginning in

3 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

1642 when it acted as the headquarters of the Royalist leader, the Earl of Derby. The town was besieged in 1643 and despite resistance surrendered at the end of May 1643. From then onwards the town was held by Parliament until following the final battle of the Civil Wars at Winwick Cromwell accepted the surrender of the Scots at Warrington bridge (Shaw & Clark 2003). 4.13 The major expansion of the town began in the 18th century with the development of copper works at Bank Quay by Thomas Patten and the town also became a major centre of the sail making industry. By the 19th century glass and soap making were important major activities as were cotton manufacture, fustian or velvet cutting, pin-making, engineering, tanning, flour milling and brewing amongst others. 4.14 Associated with these changes were improvements to the road network as a result of Turnpike Acts and from 1720 the Mersey and Irwell Navigation Act allowed the improvement of the river system as far as Manchester and was the beginning of Warrington as the focus of the region’s canal system. The Warrington and Newton connection with the Liverpool and Manchester railway was opened in 1831 4.15 The archaeological potential of each of the working areas is considered separately below.

Woolston Weir , Bridge Lane Industrial Estate (MR1 & MR2)

4.16 The site lies c. 3 km to the east of Warrington within the former township of Woolston with Martinscroft. The area remained a largely agricultural landscape ‘yielding good crops of potatoes and turnips, oats, wheat, and clover, whilst many a marshy corner is devoted to the cultivation of osiers for the manufacture of potato-hampers and 'skips’ (Farrer & Brownbill 1907) until well into the 20th century when it was incorporated into Warrington New Town in the 1970s. 4.17 The Prehistoric, Roman and Post-Roman of the wider area has been summarised above and there are no sites of this period documented on the CHER. 4.18 Woolston is not mentioned in the Domesday of 1086, the earliest reference being in a document of c. 1147 where it is named ‘Ulfiton’ (Farrer & Brownbill 1907). The name is probably derived from the Old English personal name Wulf and tun, i.e. the settlement or farm of Wulf (Mills 1976). 4.19 The medieval history of the township is documented in Farrer & Brownbill (1907) but largely relates to the ownership of the manor. The most relevant document in the present context is a charter of Ralph, abbot of Shrewsbury, which dates to 1175-82 and grants the free tenants in the township the ‘… riddings or assarts of the 'Eyes' lying within a ditch by the water of Mersey for 21 pence yearly, and one 'land' or acre strip from each tenant…’. The eyes are the areas of land enclosed by loops of the Mersey and shows that areas such as the study area were being brought into agricultural production, probably from former waste, during the late 12th century. 4.20 Documents dating 1359-63 relating to a dispute between the abbot of Shrewsbury and Robert son of Robert de Woolston refer to a ’plat of land, called Wyldegreve’ and a fishery‘, though the fishery is unlocated. 4.21 Martinscroft was an enclosure within the manor of Woolston and is first mentioned in the late 12th or early 13th century. The limited documentary evidence available suggests it was a small hamlet at the eastern end of the township and centred upon and area c. 200 m north of the scheme. 4.22 The enclosure award (with plan) for the township is held by Lancashire Archives, Preston (Ref AE/7/17) but is dated 1849 and so was not consulted as it is unlikely to add any detail not available from the Tithe Map or OS mapping. 4.23 Woolston New Cut (CHER 4674/20; Fig. 1) was opened in 1821 as part of the Mersey & Irwell Navigation which carried traffic between Warrington and Manchester prior to

4 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

construction of the Ship Canal. It replaced Woolston Old Cut which was built in 1755 as part of the original canal works. 4.24 The other sites listed on CHER (Appendix A; Fig. 1) are all of late post-medieval date and are unaffected by the scheme. 4.25 The Old Woolston Weir was constructed in the 1890s as part of the Manchester Ship Canal works and lies downstream of Woolston New Weir which was constructed in the early 1990s. 4.26 The Woolston-with-Martinscroft Tithe Map was surveyed in c. 1840 (Fig. 3) and shows the New Cut with lock gates at the entrance and mid-point. The former channel of Woolston Old Cut is shown to the south of the canal. Fieldnames do not seem to be recorded. The hamlet of Martinscroft is shown as a cluster of c. 8 houses centred upon Weir Lane. The Bridge Lane site is shown as as fields on the right (north) bank of the Mersey and south of the Woolston New Cut. 4.27 Some of the area south of the Old Cut was covered by the Thelwall Tithe Map which was surveyed in 1845 (Fig. 4). This shows the route of Woolston Old Cut and its entrance locks together with the Gunpowder Mills (CHER 4236) to the south-east of the scheme. 4.28 The area is shown unchanged on the 1st Edition OS 6 in sheet 109 which was surveyed 1845-7, published 1849 (Figs. 5 and 6). The 1nd Edition 25 in sheets 109.14 and 15 were surveyed in 1891 (Fig. 7) and other than minor additions to buildings in Martinscroft shows the area unchanged since the 1840s. 4.29 Later OS editions show the area largely unchanged until the late 1960s when the area began to be incorporated into Warrington New Town (Figs. 8 – 11). 4.30 The entrance lock to the New Cut is not affected by the scheme and the Bridge Lane site is now occupied by an industrial estate, the construction of which is likely to have destroyed any deposits which may have been present. The site was visited on 23 July 2015 by M. Adams. 4.31 The site was visited on 23 July 2015 by M. Adams. 4.32 Access to the New Cut at MR1 was blocked by private land and the lock obscured by vegetation and modern surfacing. 4.33 MR2 was fenced off and overgrown but the river bank appeared to be largely obscured by modern dumping. 4.34 In conclusion both MR1 and MR2 are of very low archaeological risk, both areas lie at a considerable distance from the known areas of Roman and medieval settlement. They appear to have been enclosed as agricultural land during the late 12th century and remained as fields until the only documented heritage asset in the area, Woolston New Cut, was constructed in 1821. The latter is largely avoided by the works at MR2 and only a short section (c. 10 m) of the northern canal wall are affected at MR1, the entrance lock is avoided. Historic mapping shows that the immediate area around both sites remained agricultural land until the late 20th century.

Westy (ML1, 2 & 3)

4.35 Westy lies on the left (south) bank of the Mersey in an area which historically part of the township of Grappenhall, though the area north of the school crossed by the works lay within the township of Thelwall. 4.36 Thelwall is first mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of 919 AD, where it is recorded the site of a ‘burh’ (a defended centre) (Shaw & Clark 2003). The placename is given as Thealwaele, which translates literally as ‘deep pool at a plank’ or ‘pool with a plank bridge’ which Dodgson (1970) suggests that the burh was established to defend a

5 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

river crossing against attack from the newly established Viking kingdom centred upon York. Many Anglo-Saxon burhs expanded to become modern towns but this did not happen at Thelwall, the village was omitted from the Domesday Survey of 1086 and it remained a small settlement until well into the 20th century. It has been suggested that this may be because it’s burh status was short lived, because in 920 AD Ragnald of York submitted to Edward the Elder. 4.37 The site of the burh is not known, though three locations have been suggested, two are close to the village core and one to the west in Latchford, though other possible locations include sites within the loops of the meanders of the River Mersey such as that to the north of the present site (Shaw & Clark 2003). A watching brief at the Latchford site (Ahmad 2015) failed to find any evidence for the burh. 4.38 Documents relating to the medieval holding of the manor at Thelwall are detailed in Ormerod (1882) but contain nothing of relevance to the present study. 4.39 Gappenhall is first mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086 when Edward held it from Osbern, son of Tezzo. Prior to the Conquest it had been held by Edward and Dot as two manors when it was worth 5 shillings, after the Conquest it was worth 6 shillings. Otherwise the details are sparse and allow little of the landscape to be reconstructed. Ormerod (1882) gives details of the medieval ownership of the manor and the church but there is nothing of direct relevance to this project. 4.40 The Latchford Feeder Canal was constructed to supply water to the to Latchford Canal which opened in July 1804. Because the canal as built had locks at both ends, both of which dropped into the river Mersey, it had no natural water supply and water was lost every time a boat passed through a lock. The feeder canal was built from just above Paddington Lock on the Mersey and Irwell Navigation. The water was then carried across the Mersey in an aqueduct, which also acted as a footbridge, and followed the banks of the Mersey to arrive at Latchford Lock. It emptied into the canal just to the south of the lock The feeder ran from just above Paddington Lock and was then carried across the Mersey in an aqueduct, which also acted as a footbridge, and followed the banks of the Mersey to arrive at Latchford Lock. 4.41 The area is shown in detail on the Tithe Maps for Thelwall (surveyed in 1845) and Grappenhall (surveyed in 1828) and which show the feeder canal running along the southern bank of the Mersey (Figs. 12 and 13 ). The route of the works crosses Plots 401, ‘Part of Westy Withins, 402 ‘Part of Withins’ and 403 ‘Marsh at Westy Barn and Barn therein’ which were in use as meadow and pasture respectively. Although a barn is named in Plot 403 it is not located. 4.42 The area is shown on the 1st Edition OS 6 in (Figs. 14 and 15). The OS sheet XVI was surveyed in 1873-7 and published in 1882 (Fig. 16). It shows the landscape in the study area unchanged since the 1840s and it is labelled as ‘Liable to flood’. 4.43 Later OS editions (Figs. 17 – 21) show the area largely unchanged until the early 1950s when the Westy estate was constructed. St. John’s School was constructed in the 1960s and the area to its north occupied by a sewage works from c. 1954-1990. The sewage works included several large tanks and storage areas and the construction of these are likely to have destroyed any archaeological deposits which may have been present in that area. 4.44 The site was visited on 23 July 2015 by M. Adams. 4.45 ML1 follows a modern fence which lies south of a grassed river bank. No surface features were visible. Eroded sections of bank suggest that silts and gravels lie close to the surface. 4.46 The route of ML2 was heavily overgrown and fenced off. 4.47 The route of ML3 was heavily overgrown and not directly accessible. However, it could be seen from the riverside path and Kingsway Bridge and it is clearly runs 3-4 m east of the Feeder Canal and will not affect it. The canal is heavily overgrown and most sections are obscured, though the red sandstone parapets of a footbridge are visible at

6 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

the southern end. The footpath which follows the embankment between the canal and the Mersey retains short sections of red sandstone cobbling which presumably was the original 19th century surface. Approximately 50 m north of the northern end of ML3 a short section of the canal is dry and relatively clear of undergrowth. This section is revetted on both sides using roughly squared red sandstone blocks c. 0.3 m across. 4.48 All three areas lie at a considerable distance from the known areas of Roman and medieval settlement and are of very low archaeological risk. Although potentially on the site of the 10th century AD site of the burh of Thelwall this heritage asset is poorly located and is more likely to have been situated either close to core of the village or at Victoria Park to the west. Later mapping shows the area crossed by ML2 as being prone to flooding and it seems to have been low quality agricultural land from at least the 18th century until the development of the Westy estate in the mid-20th century. 4.49 In conclusion ML1, ML2 and ML3 are of very low archaeological risk, all of these areas lie at a considerable distance from the known areas of Roman and medieval settlement. They remained as fields until the only documented heritage asset in the area, the Latchford Feeder Canal, was constructed in 1804. The latter is avoided by the works and there is no direct impact upon the site.

5. Review of Previous Phases of Archaeological Intervention

5.1 There have been three earlier phases of archaeological intervention during construction of the Warrington FRMS. 5.2 Phase 1 was centred on the south bank of the Mersey in the Victoria Park area. Archaeological monitoring focussed on the top soil strip at the park entrance and works in the area along the former route of the Latchford Canal. 5.3 The only significant feature located was the eastern wall of the Latchford to Runcorn Canal which was constructed for the Mersey and Irwell Navigation Company in 1804. The canal wall appeared to have suffered severe disturbance since it was in-filled in about 1980 and only a short length of the upper coping stones survived. These were left in situ and sealed by the clay bank constructed for the scheme. 5.4 Phase 2 was centred on the north bank of the Mersey between Warrington Bridge and Howley. The watching brief was aimed at recording the remains of the Mersey Mill, a water-powered corn mill situated on the north bank of the River Mersey to the west of Howley Lock. 5.5 The first Mersey Mill was probably constructed in about 1770 and operated until about 1830 when it was destroyed by fire, though the houses and outbuildings which formed part of the site seem to have survived. The mill appears to have remained derelict until 1863 when it was purchased and then totally rebuilt by the firm of James Fairclough and Sons. The mill was closed in 1946 and demolished in about 1976. 5.6 All of the archaeological deposits found during the watching brief belonged to the 19th century mill, and nothing was found which could be proven to be part of the 18th century mill. The use of sandstone masonry in the construction of the wheel-pit/tail race area might suggest that these were a survival from the earlier mill incorporated into the new building. However, map evidence shows that the original building was significantly smaller than the mid-19th century structure and it is likely that these too date to 1863. 5.7 Phase 3a is on-going at the time of writing but has covered piling and other operations at Paddington Lock, Cinnamon Brow and the Twiggeries. 5.8 In general terms the site works of all phases proceeded as standard watching briefs and there is little to comment upon in terms of actual site operations. However, the appointment of NMLFAU as archaeological contractor occurred at a relatively late stage during Phase 1. This seems to have had an adverse impact upon communications between the main contractor and NMLFAU with no clear chain of responsibility. The main

7 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

consequence of this was a number of ‘false alarms’ where NMLFAU staff attended site unnecessarily. 5.9 Communications during Phase 2 were improved over those in Phase 1, and there were far fewer false call outs. However, sub-contractors’ operatives on site did not always appear to be aware of the watching brief requirements and there was one ‘near miss’ when a section of the mill wall was nearly removed without record. 5.10 Communication in Phase 3a were greatly improved by inserting a Pre-project meeting between the client, their main contractor and NMLFAU where the timetable, detailed site works programme and communications systems were reviewed and it is proposed to continue this approach into Phase 3B. Provision has also been made for a mid-project meeting to review progress and other issues.

6. Legislation

6.1 There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, Registered Battlefields, Registered Parks and Gardens or Conservation Areas within the proposed areas of works.

7. Aims and Objectives

7.1 The aims of the project are:

 To provide information on the presence/absence, location and characteristics of archaeological remains at the sites.  To inform and develop the regional archaeological research agendas  To ensure advances in knowledge are communicated to the academic and public audiences  To discharge the planning condition

7.2 The specific objectives of the site works are:

 To identify the significance of any archaeological remains within defined areas of archaeological interest.

 To recover artefacts and, where necessary, palaeo-environmental samples and ecofacts from deposits of potential cultural significance.

 To analyse the site records, artefacts and ecofacts to produce an archive report and publication on the archaeology of the site.

 To submit an ordered archive to a suitable local repository.

7.3 Should extensive archaeological remains be present there may be a requirement for additional archaeological works outside the scope of this document. Any proposed change will be approved by the Client and the Planning Authority prior to those actions commencing.

8. Location of Project

8.1 The watching brief will be confined to the extents of the proposed development as discussed with the client. It will be targeted based on areas of known significance, areas of archaeological potential which cannot be investigated in advance of construction, and

8 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

where the action of construction provides the opportunity to record the archaeology. The CH2M WSI (agreed with Mark Leah, Development Control Archaeologist Cheshire Archaeology Planning Advisory Service, Cheshire Shared Services) states that Archaeological monitoring will not be required where sheet piling is inserted into the river edges.

9. Methodology

9.1 All work will be carried out by appropriately qualified archaeologists in accordance with the Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Evaluations produced by the Institute of Field Archaeologists (2008) and with the IFA Code of Conduct. 9.2 All archaeologists working or visiting the site will be expected to have a CSCS card appropriate to the activity they are engaged in 9.3 The client and/or main contractor will give two weeks notice of the project start to the archaeological contractor. Two days notification is required for the notification of individual groundworks. 9.4 The archaeological contractor will provide the same notice to the Local Government Archaeology Advisor (Cheshire Archaeology Planning Advisory Service)

Project Roles

9.5 The following roles have been identified within the Project: 9.6 Archaeological Advisor Stephen Kemp (Environment Agency): Advisor to the Environment Agency project team 9.7 Archaeological Monitor Mark Leah: Mark Leah (Development Control Archaeologist Cheshire Archaeology Planning Advisory Service, Cheshire Shared Services) responsible for advising whether or not the condition can be discharged – working on behalf of the Planning Authority 9.8 Project Archaeologist Mark Adams will be responsible for the day-to-day execution of the methodology detailed below. 9.9 Contractor Management of programme, access and health and safety

Pre-Project Planning

9.10 Prior to the commencement of site works there will be a pre-project meeting between the Project Archaeologist, representatives of the main contractor and representatives of the Environment Agency (attendance as necessary). This will review the timetable of the works, archaeological requirements, communication chains and call out procedures. 9.11 If required these elements will be reviewed at the pre-project meeting.

Archaeological Risks

9.12 The project will be composed of varied approaches according to the degree of archaeological risk (i.e. the likelihood of archaeological deposits being present) associated with each element of the project the anticipated. These are described separately below.

9 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

9.13 Due to the nature of the work and landownership there are few ways of managing risk to the delivery of the flood defence scheme other than by increasing resources and managing the programme i.e. by negotiating additional time with the Client and ensuring that others can work around the archaeological issue. Should archaeology be identified that requires recording beyond a watching brief, a working area will be defined, and the time requirements indicated to the Client and the Main Contractor. 9.14 The working areas within the scheme have been assessed as Very Low & Low Risk Areas according to the following criteria.

Category

Very Low Risk Areas Areas with a documented absence of heritage assets and/or areas where construction consists of operations such as the insertion of piling which is unlikely to expose any archaeological deposits for recording which may be present. Low Risk Areas with no documented absence of heritage assets and/or areas where construction consists of operations such as topsoil stripping which may expose any undocumented archaeological deposits which may be present but likely to have only a limited, negligible, impact to the survival of those deposits Medium Risk Areas with documented heritage assets of low significance such as individual finds of stone or metal artefacts or poorly located buildings or other structures with an unknown chance of survival.

High Risk Areas with documented heritage assets of medium significance such as clusters of finds of stone or metal artefacts or accurately located buildings or other structures with a good chance of survival.

Very Low Risk Areas

9.15 The Very Low Risk areas of Phase 3b of the Warrington FRMS have been provisionally identified as:

 Bridge Lane Industrial Estate (MR2)

 Westy (ML 1, 2 & 3) 9.16 The defences within MR2 will be constructed by sheet pilings and will avoid the New Cut lock. 9.17 Where sheet piling occurs archaeologists will only be in attendance if an obstruction is encountered which requires exploration or facilitation trenches to be excavated. It will be the role of the Contractor to report such instances to the Project Archaeologist and ensure attendance is arranged. 9.18 The upper courses of a short section of the former lock gate at Paddington Lock are exposed in the footpath at NGR SJ 628 888 and these are to be preserved in situ but will be recorded photographically prior to the start of works. 9.19 Otherwise monitoring in very low risk areas will consist of ‘Tool Box Talks’ given to contractors involved in groundworks. These will be aimed at providing site personnel with a basic grounding in common archaeological finds and the reporting procedures for archaeological finds for the project. 9.20 The talks will last for c. 20-25 minutes and will include the following elements

 Short introduction to archaeological background of the scheme (5 mins)

10 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

 Review of what sorts of structures are commonly encountered on archaeological sites and what may be expected on this scheme (for example log boats) (5 mins).

 Handling session of common classes of archaeological finds including stone tools, ceramics and coins. This will include examples of what not to report (for example small quantities of late 19th cent glass and ceramics) (10-15 mins)

 Reporting procedures in the event of a find being made or piling obstruction encountered (2-3 mins). 9.21 The reporting chain in Low Risk Areas will be as follows. 9.22 Each working area will have an appointed ’Nominated Contact’ to whom finds are reported by groundworkers. Their job will be to make a preliminary record of where and when the find was made and to alert the Project Archaeologist that a find has been made. It is intended to make use of camera phones to assist in the initial assessment by the Project Archaeologist. 9.23 The Project Archaeologist will assess the find/s and determine whether a site visit or any other action is required. 9.24 Reported finds will be collected by the Project Archaeologist and sent to nominated specialists as required for identification and analysis.

Low Risk Areas

9.25 The Very Low Risk areas of Phase 3b of the Warrington FRMS have been provisionally identified as:

 Woolston Weir (MR1) 9.26 The defences at Woolston Weir (MR1) will consist of an embankment constructed along and across the New Cut canal. Where the embankment follows the line of the canal wall there will be some requirement for excavation though this appears to leave the canal retaining wall in situ. The proposed route avoids the canal lock. 9.27 Monitoring in this area will consist of periodic/intermittent visits by the Project Archaeologist during groundworks. An initial site visit at the commencement of site works will include an assessment by the Project Archaeologist as to the duration and periodicity of future site visits. This assessment will be based upon the extent of the area/s being worked, the scale of works and the likely rate of progress of the works. 9.28 Where possible topsoil stripping and removal of overburden will be conducted using a toothless ‘ditching bucket’ until declared clear of heritage assets by the Project Archaeologist. Alternatively selective areas to a total of 5% of the topsoil strip will be cleaned to the formation level with a toothless ditch bucket and inspected by the Project Archaeologist. 9.29 If an "unexpected discovery" of significant interest, the recording of which might result in a programme delay and/or a compensatory event then the Client and their Archaeological Advisor, the Archaeological Monitor and the main contractor’s senior representative on site will be informed as soon as possible by the Project Archaeologist. Initially consideration should be given to preservation in-situ but if this is not practical then such discoveries may give rise to a salvage excavation funded from the contingency in the archaeological project budget. 9.30 The significance of a heritage asset will be made by consensus between these parties and reference to the Regional Research Framework.

11 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Medium and High Risk Areas

9.31 No Medium or High Risk Areas have been identified on this phase of the Warrington FRMS.

General Excavation and Recording Methodologies

9.32 All excavation will be undertaken with a view to avoid damaging any archaeological deposits or features, which appear worthy of preservation in situ or subject to more detailed investigation. 9.33 All archaeological deposits/features identified will be hand excavated in an archaeologically controlled and stratigraphic manner sufficient to meet the aims and objectives of the investigation. 9.34 Sufficient of the archaeological deposits/features will be examined to recover evidence of date, condition and function. A minimum sample of 50% of archaeological features will be examined by excavation. Features such as post-holes, pits and slots will be half-sectioned and there will be excavation of segments across linear features such as ditches and gullies covering no less than 25% of the feature as exposed in the trench. 9.35 Substantial structural features (e.g. brick or stone walls, floor surfaces) may be subject to preservation in situ subject to consultation with the client and Cheshire West and Council. 9.36 All excavated deposits will be scanned with a metal detector operated by a suitably qualified operator. 9.37 A full written, drawn and photographic record will be made of all archaeological features using NMLFAU’s system of proforma context sheets. Hand drawn plans and sections of features will be produced at an appropriate scale (normally 1:20 for plans and 1:10 for sections). Drawings will include spot heights relative to Ordnance Datum in metres, correct to two decimal places. Site drawings will be tied into Ordnance Survey mapping of the area using a total station. 9.38 The site grid for the survey will be tied in to OS datum. 9.39 Digital and monochrome negative photographs will be taken at a minimum format of 35mm as required. In addition to records of archaeological features, a number of general site photographs will also be taken to give an overview of the site and the scope of the works taking place. 9.40 All non-modern artefacts will be retained. If appropriate all ‘small finds’ will be recorded three dimensionally. Bulk finds will be collected by context. Finds will be treated in accordance with the English Heritage (now Historic England) guidance document ‘A strategy for the care and investigation of finds’ (1995) and stored in controlled conditions where appropriate. All artefacts will be retained, cleaned, labelled and stored as detailed in the guidelines of the CIfA. Conservation, if required, will be undertaken by approved conservators. Institute for Conservation (UKIC) guidelines will apply (UKIC 1998). All ferrous objects and a selection of non-ferrous objects (including all coins) will be x-rayed. 9.41 Should deposits with significant Palaeoenvironmental potential (e.g. waterlogged deposits displaying good organic preservation and deeply stratified deposits) be encountered an appropriate soil sampling strategy will be implemented in accordance with Centre for Archaeology Guidelines (English Heritage 2002). 9.42 These would comprise bulk sediment samples of up to 40 litres, to a maximum of three samples in the first instance. It is not anticipated that significant waterlogged

12 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

deposits or deeply stratified remains will be encountered on this site, but if unexpected remains are uncovered a detailed strategy for their sampling and recording will be arranged in consultation with the regional Historic England Science advisor. 9.43 Where appropriate scientific dating will occur following consultation with the EH Regional Science Advisor. This will be funded from the contingency in the archaeological project budget. 9.44 Should articulated human remains be discovered during the course of the excavations the remains will be covered and protected and left in situ in the first instance. The removal of human remains will only take place in accordance with the appropriate Home Office and Environmental Health regulations and the Burial Act 1857 and Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act, 1981. Consultation with the Client, Archaeological Advisor and Archaeological Monitor will occur as soon as the issue is identified and the extent known. 9.45 Any artefacts which are recovered that fall within the scope of the Treasure Act 1997 will be reported to H. M. Coroner. Where removal cannot take place on the same working day as discovery, suitable security will be taken to protect the finds from theft. 9.46 NMLFAU will conform to the Client’s arrangements for notification of entering and leaving the site. If desired by the Client, organised tours of the works can be arranged for interested parties. 9.47 The safety of site access, and the excavation methodology will be reviewed daily, and the methodology may be modified to ensure it is a safe place to work in agreement with the Principal Contractor. Where this is likely to affect the quality of the product this will be communicated to the Client, Archaeological Advisor and Archaeological Monitor, 9.48 Temporary office, welfare and storage space will be made available by the client. 9.49 Any variations to the archaeological programme will only be undertaken after consultation with, and the approval of the Client. Any variations will be fully recorded and circulated to parties beforehand (unless health and safety requirements demand immediate variation). 9.50 Staffing will consist of a single archaeologist at Project Officer or above. Due to the restricted extent of the site no requirement for additional staffing is anticipated.

10. Reporting

10.1 Whilst site works are on-going a monthly update will be provided to the Client, Archaeological Advisor, Archaeological Monitor, and site representative. Where detailed excavation is required a weekly update will be delivered. Highlight reports will cover both progress and foresight on future activities, issues and risks to provide the opportunity to resolve issues and develop efficiencies. These documents will stimulate discussions and agreement on changes in methodology. 10.2 According to standard procedure, excavation will be followed by a period of post- excavation processing. This will involve the cataloguing and analysis of any finds, samples and the preparation of the archive report and with the view to final deposition in the event of no further investigation being required. 10.3 The post-excavation strategy will be reassessed at the completion of fieldwork and communicated to the stakeholders. 10.4 All finds will be washed, marked and bagged according to standard NMLFAU procedures. 10.5 After the completion of all Phases of fieldwork (Phases 1-3) a formal report will be prepared for submission to the Cheshire Historic Environment Record (CHER) in the form of an Archive/unpublished ‘Grey Literature Report’. The report will contain the following elements:-

13 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

 A non-technical summary.

 A table of contents.

 An introduction with acknowledgements, including a list of all those involved in the project and the location and description of the evaluation area.

 A statement of the project aims.

 An account of the project methodology undertaken, with an assessment of the same.

 A statement of the content of the archive.

 A brief summary of the archaeological/historical background of the area, indicating past and present land use, accompanied by relevant maps.

 A description of the archaeological works, including any archaeologically significant  features/deposits or potential features/deposits identified within the site.

 A discussion of the location, nature, extent, date, quality, condition and significance of any archaeological deposits/features uncovered.

 Digital colour images of work in progress and significant features.

 Plans and section drawings at appropriate scales.

 Other maps, plans, drawings and photographs as appropriate.

 A description of the other finds and palaeoenvironmental samples collected including an exposition of the methodologies employed with a statement on the presence or absence of material and an assessment of preservation. An interpretation of the finds including reference to any unusual or important features of the assemblage will also be included. Specialist reports will be included of all important groups of finds, materials and samples as necessary.

 An interpretation of the results with a statement of the significance of any identified archaeological features/sites.

 An identification of any implications for the proposed development arising from the work.

 A bibliography of sources consulted.

 An index to the project archive and a statement of its location/proposed repository.

10.6 The main body of the report will be produced by M. Adams. Reports on some aspects of the archive will be produced by appropriately qualified specialists appointed as required. 10.7 The report will include assessments of any artefacts and environmental samples collected during the site works. All artefacts considered vulnerable will be assessed by a specialist conservator with a view to identifying any long-term storage issues. 10.8 A suitably qualified specialist palaeoenvironmental contractor will be used to analyse any palaeoenvironmental samples considered of potential in accordance with industry standard procedures.

14 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

10.9 NMLFAU will take into account any observations on the content of the draft report made by the Client, appropriate representatives of Warrington Borough Council before the final version is issued. 10.10 Bound paper copies of the report and digital copies in PDF format will be provided to the Client and Cheshire West and Chester Council. A further copy will be sent to the regional Science Advisor for Historic England. 10.11 Following review by the Client the archive report will be submitted to the stakeholders for agreement within 12 months of the completion of field work unless the Client is notified and agrees otherwise.

11. Publication

11.1 Publication of the results will occur in an appropriate archaeological journal to a standard commensurate with the importance of the discoveries. 11.2 Once the final report has been accepted an OASIS fieldwork summary form will be completed and submitted to the Archaeology Data Service. 11.3 A summary of findings will be submitted to the regional Council for British Archaeology group, CBA North West (c/o Dr. M. Nevell, UMAU, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL who will provide a pro-forma sheet).

12. Archive Preparation and Deposition

12.1 The archive of finds and records generated during the fieldwork will be kept secure at all stages of the project. All records and materials produced will be quantified, ordered, indexed and internally consistent. 12.2 NMLFAU shall, prior to the start of fieldwork, liaise with the appropriate museum to obtain agreement in principle to accept the archive for long term storage and curation. NMLFAU will be responsible for identifying any specific requirements or policies of the museum in respect of the archive and for adhering to those requirements. 12.3 The archive will be deposited within six months of the completion of the site works, with the agreement of the Clients.

13. Monitoring

13.1 NMLFAU will liaise with Cheshire West and Chester Council to inform them of the commencement of site works and to offer them with the opportunity to visit and monitor the work in progress.

14. Copyright

14.1 Copyright in all reports and documentation/images produced as part of this project to reside with National Museums Liverpool who retain the right to be identified as the author/originator of the material. This applies to all archaeological aspects of the project. 14.2 The results of the archaeological work will be submitted to the clients, Historic England and Cheshire Historic Environment Record by NMLFAU and will ultimately be made available for public access.

15 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

15. Insurances and Health and Safety

15.1 NMLFAU is covered by public and professional indemnity insurance. 15.2 Management of Health and Safety on site is to be the responsibility of the Principal Contractor and NMLFAU staff and visitors will conform to their arrangements in all respects. These arrangements will be communicated at the initial Site Induction and updated as required. 15.3 NMLFAU has its own Health and Safety policy compiled using national guidelines and which conform to all relevant Health and Safety legislation. A copy of the Health and Safety policy may be submitted to the client in advance of fieldwork. 15.4 NMLFAU will undertake a risk assessment detailing project specific Health and Safety requirements prior to the commencement of on-site works. 15.5 The Risk Assessment will be agreed with the Principal Contractor in advance of commencement of site work. Health and Safety will take priority over archaeological issues. 15.6 The following general comments apply. 15.7 The Principal Contractor will provide the archaeological contractor with any information available regarding hazardous contaminants present in the surface materials and sub-surface strata at the site. Appropriate measures will then be taken by NMLFAU to ensure the health and safety of any of its staff who may come into contact with such contaminants. Measures may include on-site adaptation of the methodology. 15.8 All archaeologists on site will be under the care of the Principal Contractor who will undertake site inductions which will identify and issues and highlight any risks the archaeologist might encounter on the site in respect to their work. Risk assessments will be shared between the two parties so that working practices are understood. 15.9 All necessary protective clothing and equipment will be used as dictated by the Principal Contractor. As a minimum the archaeologists on site will wear hard hats, reflective jackets and protective footwear at all times. Gloves and protective suits are to be worn during the handling of human remains. 15.10 No personnel are to work in deep unsupported excavations. Trench sides will be constantly assessed for stability and will be stepped, battered back or shored when there is risk of collapse. 15.11 The archaeologist will be inducted so that they know the site first aiders, the reporting procedures for accidents and environmental incidents and site evacuation procedures.

16. Bibliography

Ahmad C. 2015 An Archaeological Watching Brief During Construction of New Stadium Facilities in Victoria Park, Road, Warrington, Cheshire. Site Code 165. Final Report. Unpublished report for Buckingham Group Contracting Limited ch2m 2014 Archaeological Baseline Review and Written Scheme of Investigation Warrington Flood Alleviation Scheme – Phase 3A. Unpublished document prepared for the Environment Agency

Dodgson, J McN, 1970 The Place-Names of Cheshire: Part ll. The Place-Names of Bucklow Hundred and Hundred, Cambridge.

Ekwall E. 1960 Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-names. Oxford. English Heritage 2002 Environmental Archaeology. A guide to the theory and practice of

16 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation. Centre for Archaeology Guidelines English Heritage 2009. Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment. The MoRPHE Project Managers’ Guide (version 1.1)

Farrer W. and Brownbill J. 1907 'Townships: Woolston with Martinscroft', in A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 3, ed. (London,), pp. 331-334 http://www.british- history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol3/pp331-334 [accessed 21 July 2015].

Hall B.R. and Folland C.J. 1970 Soils of Lancashire Soil Survey of Great Britain

Institute For Archaeologists 2008a Standard And Guidance for archaeological field evaluation Institute For Archaeologists 2008b Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Watching Briefs Mills D. 1976 The Placenames of Lancashire. Batsford, London Museums and Galleries Commission, 1992. Standards in the Museum Care of Archaeological Collections Ormerod G. 1882 Vol I. Helsby Edition. Shaw M. and Clark J. 2003 Thelwall Archaeological Assessment, Cheshire Historic Towns Survey Environmental Planning, Cheshire County Council, Backford Hall , Backford, Chester CH1 6PZ Society of Museum Archaeologists, 1993. Selection, Retention and Dispersal of Archaeological Collections Society of Museum Archaeologists, 1995. Towards an Accessible Archaeological Archive United Kingdom Institute for Conservation, 1990. Guidelines for the Preparation of Excavation Archives for Long-term Storage United Kingdom Institute for Conservation, 1998. First Aid for Finds.

Shaw M. & Clark J. 2003 Cheshire Historic Towns Survey: Warrington Archaeological Assessment Environmental Planning, Cheshire County Council, Backford Hall, Backford, Chester, CH1 6PZ

Strickland, T, 1995 The Romans at Wilderspool. Greenalls, Warrington

17 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

17. Figures

18 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 1. Woolston, sites listed on CHER. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright Street View 2015 19 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 2. Westy, sites listed on CHER. Contains OS data © Crown Copyright Street View 2015.

20 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 3. Woolston, part of the Woolston-with-Martinscroft Tithe Map. Dated 1840

21 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 4. Woolston, part of the Thelwall Tithe Map. Dated 1845.

22 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig.5. Woolston, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1840.

23 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 6. Woolston, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1870.

24 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 7. Woolston, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1890.

25 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 8. Woolston, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1900.

26 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 9. Woolston, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1920.

27 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 10. Woolston, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1930.

28 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 11. Woolston, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1960.

29 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig.12. Westy, part of the Grappenhall Tithe Map. Dated 1828.

30 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 13. Westy, part of the Thelwall Tithe Map. Dated 1840.

31 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 14. Westy, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1840.

32 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 15. Westy, part of the Ordnance Survey Map (detail). Dated c.1840.

33 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 16. Westy, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1870.

34 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 17. Westy, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1890.

35 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 18. Westy, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1900.

36 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 19. Westy, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1920.

37 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 20. Westy, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1930.

38 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Fig. 21. Westy, part of the Ordnance Survey Map. Dated c.1960.

39 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

Appendix A: CHER Data

A1: CHER Events

40 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

41 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

42 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

A2: CHER Listed Buildings

43 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

44 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

45 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

46 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

47 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

48 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

A3: CHER Locally Listed Buildings

49 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design.

50 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

A 4: CHER Monuments

51 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

52 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

53 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

54 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

55 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

56 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

57 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

58 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

59 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

60 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

61 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

62 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

63 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

64 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

65 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

66 Warrington FRMS Phase 3b, Project Design. .

67