The desk-based research and the archaeological assessment were undertaken in accordance with the relevant guidance and in line with the SWARCH HIA methodology (SWARCH 2024). The site was visited by SWARCH personnel in May 2026, during which the location of the proposed development was inspected. The geophysical (gradiometer) survey was undertaken in accordance with best practice and in line with CIfA guidance. It followed the guidance that is outlined in: Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation (English Heritage 2008b); Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Geophysical Survey (CIfA 2014b); and EAC Guidelines for the Use of Geophysics in Archaeology: Questions to Ask and Points to Consider (Europae Archaeologiae Consilium/European Archaeological Council 2016). 'Archaeological geophysical survey uses non-intrusive and non-destructive techniques to determine the presence or absence of anomalies likely to be caused by archaeological features, structures or deposits, as far as reasonably possible, within a specified area or site on land, in the inter-tidal zone or underwater. Geophysical survey determines the presence of anomalies of archaeological potential through measurement of one or more physical properties of the subsurface.' (CIfA 2014b). The results of the geophysical (gradiometer) survey will, as far as is possible, inform on the presence or absence, the character, the extent, and, in some cases, the apparent relative phasing of buried archaeology to inform a strategy to mitigate any threat to the archaeological resource. The geophysical survey identified two groups of anomalies comprising c.5 anomalies. These were linear ditch and/or bank features associated with phases of the existing and historic field-system; agricultural activity and anomalies associated with metallic debris and ground disturbance were also apparent. The results of the geophysical survey would suggest that the archaeological potential for the site is low: many of the identified features are likely to relate to historic phases of field-system, some dating to the 19th century, others pre-dating the mid-19th century and tentatively suggested as being medieval and post-medieval in date. Any development of the site is likely to encounter and destroy the buried archaeological resource (should it be present), although further mitigation is unlikely to prove to be a worthwhile exercise in this instance. It is recommended that any proposals to develop this site for residential use should be sensitive to the proximity of the designated heritage assets and their setting, noting particularly their location within wider landscape views. This should include the use of appropriate vernacular materials and designs which integrate the development with the surrounding buildings rather than being eye-catching or visually prominent.
P Webb (Thu,) studied this question.