Land East of J11, M40, Banbury - Geophysical Survey Report

The survey was undertaken using four Bartington Grad601 sensors mounted at 1m intervals (1m traverse interval) onto a rigid frame. The system was programmed to take readings at a frequency of 10Hz (allowing for a 10-15cm sample interval) on roaming traverses (swaths) 4m apart (Illus 6). These readings were stored on an external weatherproof laptop and later downloaded for processing and interpretation. The system was linked to a Trimble R8s Real Time Kinetic (RTK) differential Global Positioning System (dGPS) outputting in NMEA mode to ensure a high positional accuracy for each data point. MLGrad601 and MultiGrad601 (Geomar Software Inc.) software was used to collect and export the data. Terrasurveyor V3.0.37.0 (DWConsulting) software was used to process and present the data. Headland Archaeology (UK) Ltd was commissioned by Pegasus Group on behalf of Greystoke CB (the Client), to undertake a geophysical survey, covering approximately 66 hectares, on land east of Junction 11, M40, Banbury, where an outline planning application has been submitted for the construction of industrial units with ancillary offices, associated servicing and infrastructure, new site accesses, internal roads and footpaths, landscaping, drainage features and other associated works. The results may also inform future archaeological strategy, if required. The survey has shown that 16 out of the 19 fields within the proposed development area (PDA) have had organic ('green') waste spread across them recently. The effects of this material are such that the usually weaker magnetic responses from archaeological features, if present, can potentially be masked by the higher magnitude readings from the green waste. Anomalies indicative of ridge and furrow cultivation are also recorded in all but the steepest, easternmost, fields within the site boundary. The combined effects of the soil improver and the ridge and furrow cultivation strips are potentially detrimental to resolving small and/or low magnitude (archaeological) anomalies, if present. However, it is not thought in this case that any extensive or 'significant' archaeological anomalies/features would be completely masked. The complete absence of any anomalies of possible or probable archaeological origin is therefore most likely an accurate indication of the archaeological potential of this site although this possibility cannot be completely dismissed.