Evaluation uncovers no significant archaeological remains in trial trenches at a development site, suggesting minimal impact.
A total of two trial trenches measuring 2 x 15m long x 1.8m wide, with an area of 54m2, were excavated using an 8-tonne mechanical excavator equipped with a 1.5m wide toothless ditching bucket. Trench 1 was excavated to a depth of 0.58-0.62m, and Trench 2 to 0.60m-0.65m. The position of the evaluation trenches was slightly altered from that originally proposed (Shlasko 2026: Fig 4) to accommodate trees and the location of known services. The archaeological evaluation comprised of two trial trenches located within the development footprint. The archaeological investigations did not encounter any significant archaeological objects, features, or deposits within either trench, both of which were excavated to the natural geology. The trial trenches contained services, a land drain, a soakaway, and plant rooting. However, despite localised disturbance to the soil profile, the stratigraphy revealed topsoil and subsoil overlying the natural geology. It is possible that the construction of The Gables in the 1960s entailed some degree of areal truncation, thereby removing or destroying any archaeological remains, but there was no obvious evidence for extensive disturbance to the soil profile within either trench. Despite the archaeological potential of the general area, with sites and finds dating from prehistory, the development site was likely outside any core settlement area, or it lies between widely dispersed features. Consequently, it has not been possible to achieve any of the regional research aims of this investigation on this occasion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Derek Watson (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: