The archaeological assessment follows the guidance outlined in: Conservation Principles: Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (English Heritage 2008), The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England 2015), Seeing History in the View (English Heritage 2011), Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting (Historic Scotland 2010), Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment (CIfA 2020) and Understanding Place: Historic Area Assessments in a Planning and Development Context (Historic England 2017) and with reference to Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (Landscape Institute 2013). The impact assessment also follows the guidance outlined in the Principles of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in the UK produced by CIfA, IHBC and IEMA in July 2021. The geophysical (gradiometer) survey was undertaken in accordance with current best practice and CIfA guidance; and follows the guidance outlined in Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation (English Heritage 2008b); Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Geophysical Survey (CIfA 2014b); 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.' (Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Geophysical Survey 2014). The results of the survey will as far as possible inform on the presence or absence, character, extent and in some cases, apparent relative phasing of buried archaeology to inform a strategy to mitigate any threat to the archaeological resource. The geophysical survey identified seven groups of anomalies comprising c.12 anomalies. These were a mix of linear ditch and/or bank features associated with phases of the existing and historic field-system, and features associated modern temporary structures. Possible drainage features, possible pits and/or tree-throws, 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 later 19th century and to the 20th and 21st century use of the site. There are nine Listed Buildings (×1 Grade II* and ×8 all Grade II) and one Scheduled Monument within 1km of the site. A site visit indicated that screening from local topography, hedgerows, trees and existing structures is comprehensive and that even those assets in proximity to the site are largely insulated from any visual effect; or that the contribution of setting to overall significance is less important than other factors. As a result, the majority of the designated structures were deemed unlikely to experience an appreciable impact, though ensuring that existing screening is retained is suggested. There is a potential construction phases impact on the closest heritage assets in terms of aural and visual intrusion, though this impact would temporary. With this in mind, the overall indirect impact of the proposed development can be assessed as negligible adverse. The impact of the development on any buried archaeological resource (should it be present) may be permanent and irreversible and the archaeological potential is considered unknown, though the geophysical survey indicates that the potential is low.
Nock et al. (2025) studied this question.