Aerohub Business Park ES FINAL - Cornwall Council

Aerohub Business Park Newquay Cornwall AirportAerohub

Enterprise Zone @ Newquay Cornwall Airport -

Environmental Statement Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff December 2012 - 289 - for Cornwall Development Company

access to the Business Park. It is therefore expected that the majority of visitors and employees will arrive by car.

15.1.26 A detailed road safety analysis has been undertaken for the surrounding highway network, particularly the A3059. This determined that the majority of accidents are unlikely to have been significantly influenced by the highway layout and are similarly unlikely to be influenced by the proposal.

15.1.27 An assessment of highway capacity has been undertaken on the junctions and roads around the proposed Business Park. The increase in vehicle trips which is expected as a result of the proposed Business Park is predicted to result in some additional delay at junctions in and around Newquay. As the proposal nears completion, the impact on junction capacity will become increasingly pronounced and other junctions will be adversely affected.

15.1.28 In order to assess the effect that the NSR would have upon journey times across Newquay, two forecast models were used to compare average journey times in the 2014 & 2030. The 2030 traffic model shows that all routes would suffer small increases in journey times, however the significance of this effect would be reduced following the completion of the Newquay Strategic Route.

15.1.29 The CEMP and the TP provide a range of measures which should minimise journeys to and from the site during construction and operation. The main aim of the travel plan is to increase the usage of bus travel, above the current 4% of commuters in the Travel to Work Area (Census, 2001). Further mitigation is outlined in the TP.

Socio-economic Effects

15.1.30 The proposed Business Park will be of particular benefit to the local economy. It is estimated that once complete, in 2030, the Business Park will lead to the direct creation of 2,730 jobs and an additional 400 jobs outside the Business Park. These jobs will be particularly beneficial to an area that suffers from higher than average unemployment. Assuming the development meets its potential, it will contribute to the creation of a £141 million GVA for the Cornwall economy just from on site activities.

15.1.31 The businesses attracted to the Business Park are also expected to encourage an increase in Cornwall’s performance in skills and education, as new workers arrive, and existing workers and young people train and re-skill to gain access to the new employment opportunities.

15.1.32 No significant adverse socio-economic effects were identified, it was therefore concluded that the proposed Business Park will benefit nearby communities and the economy.

Appendix 1.1 – Scoping Response

��

�� !�� "�� #�� $�#%� �� &�� #��'� �� '�� #��'�� (��

�� )�� )*� +�'��,� �� $�� -��%� �� #�� '�� $�� &�� %� �� $*��-��%��

�� #�� -�� .�� '�� '�� #��/�0��)��))�� +�'��

��1� )�� '�� &��'�� 2��,��'��

��/ �� '��-��,��'�,��#��'��

��3� ��'��'��'��'��'��'��#��(��#��

��4 �� 5�� +�'�� +�'��'��

��

�� &�� )�� *�� &�� '� �� *� �� *��-��

� � �� #�� $�#%� �� )*� ��'� �� 5�� #��

��

1�� ,��'��-��-��'��'��

1� �� 5�� -��'�� ,��#��&�� (�� *��"�� #��'��*��(�� !�

1�1� ��'�� '� �� 2��'�� '��*�� *�� -�� )�� *�� *�� '��

��

/�� +��6

�� +�� '�� (�� #��

�� +��7�� ,� �� '��

��7�� 8�� ,� ��

�� '�� '�� '��,��9��&'��+��

�� !��"�

3�� #��-�� '�� &,� ��'�� ,�� ,� '�� '�� '�� '�� '��*��,��#��&'��'��'��

3� � 0��-��:��;��,��

3�1� �� 0�� )�� +�'�� 0��'�

<�� $ ��%,� �� #�� 0�� $ ��/%� �� +��9��'�� =�� 0�� $ ��%�� +�'�� +�'�� #�� #��'�� $ ��!%7� �� (��0��'�0��.��&�$(00.%�

#�� $��

4�� #��'��,��>��'?��

4� @�� ',� �� +�� +�� 5�� '��'��

%�� &��&��'��&��

A�� -��'�� +�� '� ��

(�� $��)��'��&��

!�� 9��'6

�� 7�� =��)��

#��=��*�� A��

�� +��'��,��'��,��

�� ,��7

�� ,��,��'��

��'��'��

*� &�� $��

B�� -��B�� :��'��=��*��<��=��C��$*<=C%��#��&��*<=C��'��'��

B� ��-��)��#��=��#�� 3; ��A��

B�1 +�'��'�� (�� ,�� '��

�� +'��,��-��

�� +�� ;�� )�� '��

�� .

�� #�� ,��'��'�� '��,��'�� &�� .��,� �� '��

�� '�� '�� ,� �� -��,� ��'��7

�� 0��,��9��'��7�� '��7�� 9*0�8��'��;��'��

��1 ��&��'��

��/� ��&��'��'��*�D0��D�� '� �� -�� &��,��-��'��0�� &�� )�� '��

��3� ��#�� &�� ,� �� 5�� &�� *��'��'��

��4 ��#��-��:��&��,�� #� �� &��

��A� �� #� ��

�� ,� ��'��'� �� '��'��

�� +.�� .,�+.�� .,�/��0��1

� �� +�� ,�'�� ,� �� &,� �� '�,��#��'��#��$#@�#%�

� � ��#�� '�� '��-��#��'�� *��'��,��'��'��

�� 2��

�1�� *��#��#��*��&��5��'�� 5�� &�� 8�'�� *'�� =�� 8�'�� *�� #�� '�� ,� ��

�1� � ��#��'6�

�� C��'��'��7��

�� '� �� &�� &� �� '��7

�� +��'�7�� #�E�� ,� ��'� ��

��7�� )��

��+�'��:��7�� *��'��

�� 3��)�4��

�/�� (�� &� �� '��

�/� � �� +�� '� ��2��6;

�� -��'��'��7

�� 0�� '� ��'� �� 7

�� 0��7��

��7�� (�� 7

�� *�� ,� ��'��'��;��

��7

�/�1 .��+��'7

�� '��7�� '��7��

��7�� ,��'��;��

��

�/�/ "��'�� '�� F��G��#��A ��0��*��BA/,��9#�3 !� (��&��&��F��0��(��C��#��G�$#��9#3 !�0�� 6� ��B��@H�(�� =�'��,� �� *� �� '� ��

�� !'�'��+�� .

�3�� +�� &� �� '�� &��&��7

�� *��'��&��7�� 8��7�� 0��+��'��

�� '�� '� ��$��F:��#��)��'��G%7

�� =�� 9��'�,� ��'�� ;��'�� '�� ,� �� *��#��8��+��

�#� ��5�� '�'��'��

�4�� #��'��'��

�� *��'��&;��'��;��*'��=��'��7

�� *��&��'��,��'��'��'��7

�� 7�� '��,��

��'��7

�� *��&��'��

�%� ��3�� .

�A�� #��'��E��'��'��'��'��'��'��(��'��'��'��'��'��'��

�(� 0��,2�'��,6'��

�!�� '�� '�8��0��8�� )��#��#��

�*� 0��7��

�B�� '�� ,� �� '� �� #�� ,��

��

�� )��-��'��+��'��'��

�� !'�'��

�� +�� ,� �� &��5��',�� )�� ;�� ,� ��-�� '��'��

�� 3��2��'��.

�� (��;�� #�� '� ��'�� '��

�� !��'��

1��

�'��.

��#��'��&�� +�� '� �� '� ��

��8��#��'��-��

�� ;�� #��'�� "��'�� '��'��

#�� '�� $�� ;9��%� �� '2��'� ��

I��,

0��"��8��0��'��+�'��

��6��!A //31��6��J��'��&

��3�&8�$&�2$��!��'��

��"��9 ��'4��:��;$��<��"�6�9 �� .��"�!�9 =��2�'��"��- !��7��!�'��2��:��"��9 3�0$�� '�� "�/�- 3��'��

��"��9 ��'4��:��;$��<

#��6��>��)*�� 6=��)��C��)��

0��>��#��4��'��>��*(9�"��'��0�� ; ��4��K�)��#��=��*��,��,�� A=�*��

0��>#��BA2��2��*��3$�%6��'��'��2��,��'�2�'��,��'��

/'�0��'��'��.

��

��#�� '��,��,��'��6=��,��'��'��'��'��'��'��

)��'��'��)*��'��6;

(��'��6�� $<=C)*%,��=��)��)��"��'��*��$ �� %

�� $��9��'��

:��'��'��

� *(9��8��#��'��'��2��'��

� *<=C�:��'��=��

��3&��'��2��'��,��,��'��6

###)��:#��2�(��&��:��:#�0��+��.��:��:#��E��"��

��-��&��

��*�3�(��0��5��'�'��*�/�(��2��'��

��<��1�*=��5��*'��=��*=��'��1��*=��F��G��'�<��1�� '��,� ��1��'��(��F�� !"

�� )��'��.�9��'��

��6

� ��2��2�� L��C��)��"��'��-��

�� '��&��

�� '��'�� -�� '�� -��

�� )(�/B�; *'��=��6��'��'��

��

��622��'��2��'��2��-M0��)�N!!��B 4�;1�AA;

/�B�;��;��4�B�1�� B

2.�� >

$��

�� &��'��

� �� '��5��5�� '�� '��'��

��

�� $��6��'�.

� #��*�� &�#�� .��#��

�� &��&�� $��

� *��'�"�'��)�� *��'�=��#�� *��'�#�'�� "��'�� +��)��

)��'��&��

�� &��'��

� )��'��-��C�� '��L��C��)��$LC)%� ��&�#�� .��#�� C��+��#��

�� &��&�� )��'��

� +��'�C�� "��'�� *��'�"�'��)�� *��'�#�'��C��

�� '��

�� 0��'��

)��=C)*��-��'�� '�� .��;�<��'��

��'��'��'��'��>��?,�>��?,�>��?�>��?��'��'��'��'�,��,��

��"�6�9 �� .

�&��!:�&3��0�?@��2�0�$�2&3��2:��0:�:��3�=?@�A�!:03=�$$��&0�:02�$:!�$��)�$:��32�:0��0�;�+��<�3�=?@�A�!:03=�$$��&0�:02�3�=�0:��!�0$:��2��=��3�3�=?@�A�!:03=�$$�20(��0?��

��&��!��

�� .��

:��#�*��(�� !,��"�� !; �1��#��"��'��#��'�� !��(��*��

��#�*��#��"��'��#��'��'��)*��:��&��'��'�:��+��,�.��+��&��<��)��,��:��.��&��=��#��

=��0��'��

��)*��'��,�'��'��

*��'��'��;��'��:��,��E��'��'��'��'��'��'��'��

��)*��$��,��,��% �� ,��'��

/��0��1�B��&��'�'��

��'��#�*��'��'��:��&��'��#@��'��;��:��-��<��)��$<)%��&��'��;��'��#@��'�� :��*��-�*��-��*��9��0��&�L�� &��7��)*��'��<)��0��

:��-��'��'��<��6��622��'��&2��-M�'�N 1A�A

=��/��7��1��

��)*��:��.��&��'��'��' ��,��=��&��'��:.��6��622��;�'��'��&2��2��'211��4��-

!��

��)*��

��)*��,��'��'��,��'��-��)��#��'��'��'��#��"��'��0��,��)��'��:��"��'��#��'��$):"#%,��'��)��'��'��E��,��'��,��

:��'��&��"��'��0��$��"0%��'��*��"0��'��'��$��'��#��:��"��'��0��%��,��'��*��"0��)��'��8�K�#��&��'��*�� "0�� '��'��#��,��'�� "0�

:��"0��'��'��'��,�00<4��622��;�'��'��&20�.20"8�/��9#<(;�;��

)��

� ��!��1��=��1� ��'��'��&��'��'��,��'��&��,��;��,��'��"��'� /��'��*'��'��&��

� ��'��!�� ;��'��&��'��'��,��#@��'��,��

� ��6��.5�� '��'��'��'��'��

� ��'��&��'�� '��*'��

� ��#��:��"��'��0��622��;�'��'��&2��2��21 A B��- ��&��

:��

��"�!�9 =��2�'��

��>��&�� C'�� 3�7C'�.�!��7��$��:��;��<�

��&�� :��(��'��?��*��:��)��*��:��(��*��*��O �� ,��,��,��(��0��'�0��.��&��'��!��F��'��'��,��'��'��,��,��,��'��G�

:��-�� '��)��'��'��

:��'��)��'��"��'��$)��"%��'��)*��&��,��'��)��E��

(��0��'�0��.��&��'��!��F*'��D��D��)��'��'��'��'��9#�3!1A��

:�� '��#��7��''��'��$��-��%��

��=��&��.�;��<��'��O ��"*<)��*��:��4��*�,��6�

� *��#��;��7

� *�� ,��'��'��'��'��'��7

� *��+��:��7

� *��'��',��

)��,��&��$��'�� %��:��*:),��-��'��

��&��:��'��@H��

#��,��5��&��=��

I�� 9�� +�� &� �� (�� '�� '� '�� ,� �� '� ��,� ��'� �� &� ��'��

��"��- !��7��!�'��2��:��

�� #� �� 6� �� 9#3!1A�� 8��'�� 8��'��+�'��BBA�� '�� '��2�� '�� ,� �� '��7��'��&��&��

��"��9 3�0$�� '��

��-��'��'��'��'�� *��'��,�(*�#�$��+��%�=��'��'��5��

0�� )�� '�� (�+=��'��$��'��%��,��,��,��(�+=�� '�� '� �� '�'��

��"�/�9 3��'��

(��'��;�� ,��,��'��'��,��'��

��"��#�*�+��$(�� !%��&'��)��''��&��&��'��

(��,��+��'��'�� )*��,��'��'��

:��''��$��'��5��%��'��$��'��'��%��

��'��'��'��

��622��'��'��&2��&2��'��2��'2��'��2��-�

.��:��'��=��*��<��=��C��$*<=C%��:��

��+��'��,��*��5��)*��'��&��&��'��

.��'��; ��6��1��4�� 6��&J��'��'��&��

Appendix 2.1 – Local Development Order Site Option Analysis

LDO Options Analysis: Business Park Land Newquay Cornwall Airport

LDO1.0 What is an LDO?

� Order by LPA � Grants planning permission for specified development. � Development outside framework requires planning permission � Location specific � Defines development parameters and specific rules

1.1 Why LDO? Is an LDO the right vehicle to provide planning freedom required? We feel that it is for the following reasons:

� It delivers a comprehensive planning framework – when we have very little in place. � Reduces cost and risk – no planning fees � Reduces burden on LPA and consultees. � Promotion and communication of clear policy � Investor certainty and confidence – planning a real and perceived consent � Rapid response to investors � Easy to promote � EZ policy on planning freedoms

We don’t feel that alternative planning options (which are limited) will give us the freedom and investor attractiveness that we require.

1.3 LDO 2 Development Definition: The LDO will have quantum of development (as described within Screening Opinion (SO)). The current feasibility and market assessments will ascertain the detail of the permitted development.

Need/Supply & Demand

2.0 Evidence Base: We are in the process of concluding two pieces of evidence base: 1. Overview of Market Demand for Business Space (RTP Peter Brett). Valuation

and other professional advice to establish evidence base for development activity to specifically support LDO2.

1. Aerohub EZ @ Newquay Cornwall Airport Market Assessment Report (RDC Aviation) Detailed market assessment to assist in identifying opportunities for both ‘inside’ the fence activity and assess both supply and demand factors from or in the aviation/ aerospace industry.

These have both concluded. They both support the quantum of development land proposed.

2.1 Other uses: To date only employment/business uses (B1, B2 and B8) have been considered as a part of the strategy for the business park land. Other uses such as a Hotel/pub/restaurant in association with the Business Park have been considered but do not form part of the current LDO option 1 and strategy. Other uses such as retail and housing have not been considered to date due to proximity to the airport and overall sustainable development principles. If we include other developments then this clearly will affect the quantum of development and EIA requirements.

LDO Options:

3.1 We have 2 clear options both have clear advantages and disadvantages. I have outlined in the table attached in Appendix 2 a detailed analysis for the pros and cons of each option covering the project drivers and constraints.

3.2 LDO 2 Area of land (see plan)

Option 1: 20 ha (49.4acres) within area of search of c31.6Ha (78 acres) to east and west of SAR as below.

Option 2: The remaining development Land on the south side to the east of the SAR (and including the SAR) without planning. Totalling 35.5 Ha (87.6 acres). 3.3 LDO Drivers:

Our view is there are three main drivers in order of priority: 1. Planning Certainty (and value): The site has little planning status the sooner this

can be derisked albeit on part of the land the better. This also immediately releases value and makes the site saleable. Once the overall principle of development has been established this risk diminishes dramatically

2. Need (supply and demand) in our view the most important as it in turn drives value, planning justification and associated development risk. The quantum of land required for the development proposed for the medium term (10-15 years) term has been independently assessed and should be the principle driver. This must of course be balanced by future proofing and a sensible approach to phasing.

3. Deliverability: There are a number of critical delivery factors to consider in the options analysis such as:

a. Road access from the SAR b. Site conditions such as archaeology and habitat. c. The ability for the planning granted to satisfy the “substantial test” within the

Baker Bros FBT. d. The assessment of the likely level of clawback from the option chosen.

4.0 Conclusion: On balance Option 2 is therefore the recommended route to satisfy all the key drivers.

Of the two options I is the lower risk and preferred option. The justification for bringing forward the larger site of (35.5 Ha (87.6 acres)) of land for development as a business park to include associated uses (hotels, restaurants etc) must be supported by the evidence base

5.0 Recommendations to Project board: 1. Agree that an LDO is the correct tool to provide EZ planning freedom. 2. Option 2 is pursued as it is the best option balancing risk, development constraints,

deliverability, cost, timing, need, planning certainty and value release. 3. Re-issue the screening request to reflect the Option and to explain/ clarify issues

regarding Schedule 3 criteria further and cumulative impact and include Hotel and other business uses within the scope of development. LPA to reissue screening opinion in response to our new request.

4. Continue to include the land to west of the SAR in the feasibility and eventual masterplaning.

5. Change the scope of the consultant commission to reflect option 2 and a full EIA. 6. Mitigate the delay for possession of the land after the LDO is granted by negotiating

with Farm Business Tenant for early occupation. CC to confirm LDO will satisfy the substantial planning test within the FBT.

7. Progress the detailed feasibility for the proposed development under option 2 and bring the detailed proposal back to the Airport Board for consideration.

8. If 2 is approved agree to take a report to PPAP as soon as is possible to approve: a. the principle of a second Local Development Order (LDO) b. commencement of consultation

Miles CardenAerohub Enterprise Zone Manager

Cornwall Development Company 4th May 2012

Annexe 1: Plan of South Side Development Zones:

Summary of Development Land on the south side of NCA: PlanningDev Zone Ha AcresLDO Status Airport Masterplan

StatusWest of SAR 20.5 50.6 No planning NoEast of SAR 35.5 87.6 No planning (SAR

in LDO1) Yes

Business Park

North 6.2 15.5 Within LDO 1 Yes South side Terminal Zone 20.2 50 Within LDO 1 Yes Aerohub Dev Zone #1 13.4 33 Within LDO 1 Yes Total 95.8 236.7 These are all Gross areas.

Comparison of other sites to show scale: 1. Exeter Sky Park 43 Ha (107 acres) 1.4msqft 15-20 years planned development 2. Cardrew Industrial est Redruth 36Ha (90 acres) 3. St Columb Major Business Park 6.8 Ha (17 acres) 4. Indian Queens BP 14 Ha (35 acres) only 50% developed after 18 years 5. Pool/Barncoose Industrial Estate 40 Ha (100 acres)

Ann

exe

2 –

LDO

Opt

ions

Ana

lysi

s LD

O O

ptio

ns

Opt

ion

1: 2

0 ha

(49.

4 ac

res)

Opt

ion

2: (3

5.5

Ha

(87.

6 ac

res)

) LD

O

Sum

mar

y

Proj

ect D

river

s

Con

side

rs th

e be

st 1

5-20

Ha

of la

nd w

ithin

the

defin

ed a

rea

of s

earc

h (E

nviro

nmen

tal

Ass

essm

ent b

ound

ary)

for d

evel

opm

ent b

ased

on

the

proj

ect d

river

s w

ith a

par

ticul

ar

emph

asis

on:

�

Exi

stin

g ac

cess

�

Nee

d/de

man

d �

Cos

t (ca

pita

l and

reve

nue)

�

EZ

– ea

rly im

petu

s D

CLG

�

Fund

ing

– sh

ort t

erm

Enc

ompa

sses

the

entir

e bu

sine

ss P

ark

area

to

the

sout

h si

de a

nd to

the

east

of t

he s

outh

ern

acce

ss ro

ad b

ut N

OT

the

addi

tiona

l are

a of

land

ac

quire

d by

CC

in O

ct 2

011.

Opt

ion

2 w

ill s

ecur

e pl

anni

ng s

tatu

s on

all

CC

ow

ned

land

at t

he

airp

ort.

Intr

oduc

tion

Pro’

sC

on’s

Pro’

sC

on’s

Plan

ning

Cer

tain

ty

Airp

ort M

aste

rpla

n:ap

prov

ed b

y C

C J

une

2009

. Airp

ort M

aste

rpla

ns

have

som

e al

beit

limite

d w

eigh

t for

pla

nnin

g bu

t it i

s th

e pr

edom

inat

e fra

mew

ork

to re

ly u

pon.

All

the

sout

h si

de la

nd h

as th

eref

ore

limite

d “p

lann

ing

stat

us”.

S

ecur

ing

Pla

nnin

g is

th

eref

ore

rela

tivel

y hi

gh

risk.

Sec

ures

pla

nnin

g st

atus

on

the

land

re

lativ

ely

quic

kly

at

rela

tivel

y lo

w c

ost.

Any

pl

anni

ng is

not

cer

tain

an

d th

is w

ould

es

tabl

ish

the

prin

cipl

e of

dev

elop

men

t.

Par

t of s

ite is

out

side

of

the

Mas

terp

lan

busi

ness

par

k zo

ne.

Leav

es re

mai

n la

nd

with

out p

lann

ing

stat

us in

the

shor

t te

rm o

ther

than

th

roug

h th

e M

aste

rpla

n.

Link

s m

ore

cohe

rent

ly w

ith th

e la

nd p

redo

min

atel

y id

entif

ied

thro

ugh

the

Airp

ort

Mas

terp

lan.

Pro

vide

s fu

ll pl

anni

ng to

all

land

to

the

east

of t

he

SA

R.

As

it is

a v

ery

larg

e si

te th

e ne

ed a

naly

sis

need

s to

su

ppor

t thi

s qu

antu

m. L

DO

co

nditi

ons

mig

ht; b

e m

ore

strin

gent

, req

uire

furth

er

envi

ronm

enta

l wor

k as

ph

asin

g pr

ogre

sses

, re

stric

t per

mitt

ed u

ses.

H

ighe

r ris

k of

exp

iry o

r ev

en th

e po

tent

ial v

iew

th

at th

e pr

opos

al s

houl

d no

t be

supp

orte

d by

pl

anni

ng a

s no

t del

iver

able

ba

sed

on e

vide

nce.

Intr

oduc

tion

Pro’

s C

on’s

Pr

o’s

Con

’s

Proj

ect

feas

ibili

ty C

ost

The

two

optio

ns w

ill re

quire

di

ffere

nt le

vels

of w

ork

with

op

tion

2 ha

ving

gre

ater

co

st.

Like

ly o

vera

ll co

st to

ac

hiev

e pl

anni

ng

c£10

0k

Non

e –

Rel

ease

s £1

00k

to b

e re

dire

cted

into

oth

er

activ

ity.

Fund

ed fr

om IB

D &

10

0% E

RD

F Li

kely

cos

t to

be o

ver

£250

k an

d th

is w

ill re

duce

he

adro

om in

pro

ject

by

£250

kPr

ojec

tR

even

ueFu

ndin

g

CD

C is

fund

ing

this

wor

k th

roug

h P

riorit

y 4

SIF

fu

ndin

g po

t Thi

s re

leas

ed

fund

ing

head

room

to

prog

ress

oth

er

wor

kstre

ams.

Use

s E

RD

F fu

ndin

g fro

m a

ltern

ativ

e po

t (P

4) a

nd p

rovi

des

anot

her £

100k

of

proj

ect f

undi

ng

Pro

gram

me

is d

rivin

g a

very

tigh

t sho

rt te

rm d

eliv

ery

prog

ram

me.

none

Add

ition

al w

ork

requ

ired

wou

ld h

ave

been

del

iver

ed

thro

ugh

IBD

and

P4

fund

ing

of c

£100

K m

ight

be

lost

.

Proj

ect C

apita

l Fu

ndin

gTh

e C

onve

rgen

ce E

RD

F pr

ogra

mm

e is

kee

n to

look

at

fund

ing

furth

er A

irpor

t or

Aer

ohub

EZ

proj

ects

with

in

the

curr

ent p

rogr

amm

e th

at

ends

mid

201

3

Allo

ws

the

pote

ntia

l to

acce

ss h

igh

leve

ls o

f E

RD

F fu

ndin

g po

ssib

ly

to 7

5% in

terv

entio

n on

bu

sine

ss P

ark

Tim

etab

le to

get

pr

ojec

t to

a de

liver

able

sta

ge is

ve

ry ti

ght b

y m

id

2013

.

The

proj

ect m

ight

fit

a fu

ture

pro

gram

me

but a

t low

er

inte

rven

tion

rate

s sa

y 40

-50%

Due

to ti

mes

cale

del

ays

this

opt

ion

will

not

allo

w u

s to

acc

ess

the

curr

ent

ER

DF

prog

ram

me.

Thi

s m

ight

affe

ct E

DR

F pr

ogra

mm

e.

EZ Z

one

Stat

usE

nter

pris

e Zo

ne s

tatu

s is

co

nditi

onal

upo

n pu

tting

in

plac

e a

genu

inel

y si

mpl

ified

app

roac

h to

pl

anni

ng. T

his

may

incl

ude

the

use

of L

DO

s, a

s w

ell a

s ot

her w

ays

of s

impl

ifyin

g th

e pl

anni

ng p

roce

ss.

Will

del

iver

sim

plifi

ed

plan

ning

sta

tus

as

requ

ired

for E

Z as

ag

reed

with

and

with

in

agre

ed ti

mes

cale

s w

ith

DC

LG. E

Z st

atus

will

no

t be

jeop

ardi

se

Non

e al

thou

gh. T

his

driv

er is

cle

arly

po

litic

ally

driv

en a

nd

base

d up

on th

e ne

ed

to g

et e

arly

win

s on

a

flags

hip

gove

rnm

ent

grow

th p

olic

y.

Will

del

iver

si

mpl

ified

pla

nnin

g st

atus

as

requ

ired

for E

Z bu

t not

unt

il po

ssib

ly a

s la

te a

s S

umm

er 2

013.

Pos

sibi

lity

of lo

sing

EZ

stat

us o

n B

usin

ess

Par

k.

EZ

rate

s re

lief f

inis

hes

in

04/1

5 so

me

little

cha

nce

of

bene

fitin

g fro

m th

is.

Als

o ris

k of

loos

ing

mom

entu

m a

nd th

eref

ore

EZ

stat

us

Prog

ram

me

It is

ess

entia

l to

acce

lera

te

prog

ress

on

the

busi

ness

pa

rk s

o w

e do

not

lose

po

tent

ial i

nves

tors

. We

curr

ently

can

t offe

r site

s fro

m th

e B

P d

ue to

lack

of

acce

ss a

nd p

lann

ing

Pla

nnin

g st

atus

will

be

rece

ived

Aut

umn

2012

at

late

st. A

llow

s si

tes

to b

e br

ough

t for

war

d fo

r dev

elop

men

t and

in

frast

ruct

ure

to b

e de

liver

ed.

Non

e –

how

ever

the

prog

ram

me

prop

osed

fo

r opt

ion

1 co

uld

be

subj

ect t

o de

lay

resu

lting

in c

lose

r al

ignm

ent w

ith o

ptio

n 2.

Pos

sibi

litie

s of

w

orki

ng w

ith C

C

Pla

nnin

g &

Reg

en

and

DC

LG n

atio

nal

to fa

stra

ck a

nd

acce

lera

te p

roce

ss.

With

a fu

ll EI

A re

quire

men

t an

d th

e in

crea

sed

deta

il th

en p

lann

ing

will

onl

y be

re

ceiv

ed in

Sum

mer

201

3 at

the

earli

est.

This

del

ay

will

hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt

affe

ct o

n E

Z st

atus

and

in

vest

or in

tere

st,

Intr

oduc

tion

Pro’

sC

on’s

Pro’

sC

on’s

Envi

ronm

enta

lA

sses

smen

tsTh

e sc

ale

and

type

of t

he

deve

lopm

ent p

ropo

sed

will

ob

viou

sly

affe

ct th

e le

vel o

f E

nviro

nmen

tal A

sses

smen

t re

quire

d or

the

requ

irem

ent

for a

full

EIA

..

Cur

rent

SO

sta

tes

this

w

ill n

ot re

quire

full

EIA

to

sup

port

the

20 H

a of

de

velo

pmen

t. If

the

land

pro

pose

d w

as

redu

ced

in s

cale

the

JR ri

sk w

ould

redu

ce.

Pot

entia

l ris

k of

su

cces

sful

JR

in

rela

tion

to n

ot

requ

iring

a fu

ll E

IA

Dea

l with

the

sche

me

as a

who

le

unde

r a s

ingl

e pr

oces

s. L

ook

at

inno

vativ

e w

ays

to

fast

rack

or w

ork

with

AE

SG

to g

et

stak

ehol

der b

uy

into

fast

er p

roce

ss

Req

uire

s fu

ll E

IA to

su

ppor

t – d

ue to

tim

esca

les

invo

lved

in

proc

urem

ent t

his

will

not

en

able

spr

ing

surv

eys

to

be u

nder

take

n th

is y

ear

Pos

sibi

litie

s of

incr

ease

d co

nditi

ons

arou

nd u

ses,

ne

ed a

nd E

nviro

nmen

t. D

ue to

pha

sing

sur

veys

m

ay n

eed

to b

e up

date

d in

th

e fu

ture

. Le

gal

Cha

lleng

e R

isk

Ris

k of

JR

exi

sts

on b

oth

optio

ns b

ut c

lear

ly th

e ris

k pr

ofile

is d

irect

ly re

late

d to

th

e qu

antu

m

The

chan

ces

of a

JR

ar

e m

uch

high

er w

ith

this

opt

ion

but i

t mus

t be

rem

embe

red

that

th

e ch

ance

s of

su

cces

s m

ight

be

view

ed a

s lo

w

cons

ider

ing

the

Gov

s dr

ive

arou

nd E

Zs

Pos

sibl

e vi

ew o

f sa

lam

i slic

ing.

P

ropo

sing

20h

a of

de

velo

pmen

t is

prob

ably

the

high

est

risk

stra

tegy

.

Stil

l a ri

sk o

f JR

but

m

uch

redu

ced.

N

one

– lo

wes

t ris

k op

tion

Proj

ect

Del

iver

y

We

have

a lo

ng a

gree

d st

rate

gy fo

r the

del

iver

y of

th

e E

Z an

d th

e bu

sine

ss

Par

k. A

ny c

hang

e of

di

rect

ion

will

invo

lve

an

inev

itabl

e de

lay

with

the

proj

ect.

Con

sulta

nts

alre

ady

in

plac

e to

del

iver

fe

asib

ility

wor

k pr

ogra

mm

e on

sc

hedu

le.

Non

e –

timet

able

is

still

del

iver

able

with

in

agre

ed s

trate

gy

An

inev

itabl

e de

lay

will

occ

ur h

owev

er

we

mig

ht b

e ab

le to

ex

tend

the

curr

ent

cons

ulta

nts

com

mis

sion

to

redu

ce th

is.

Wor

se c

ase

is w

e ar

e lo

okin

g at

leas

t 12

mon

ths

dela

y to

the

proj

ect

prog

ram

me.

Intr

oduc

tion

Pro’

sC

on’s

Pro’

sC

on’s

Evid

ence

Bas

e –

Nee

d/D

eman

dW

e ar

e in

the

proc

ess

of

seek

ing

an in

depe

nden

t re

view

of t

he d

eman

d fo

r la

nd a

nd p

rem

ises

. Ear

ly

indi

catio

ns a

re th

at th

ere

is

sign

ifica

nt s

uppl

y of

land

on

BP

adj

acen

t to

airp

orts

an

d de

velo

pmen

t will

take

tim

e an

d sh

ould

be

phas

ed. W

e ar

e aw

aitin

g ad

vice

on

quan

tum

and

ph

asin

g.

Will

be

prov

ed b

y th

e de

man

d as

sess

men

t cu

rren

tly b

eing

un

derta

ken

by R

TP.

Like

ly to

pro

ve th

at

dem

and

will

be

stro

ng

but l

imite

d du

e to

re

stric

tions

on

disp

lace

men

t – n

ot

abou

t loc

al n

eed

– ne

w g

row

th

If de

man

d ou

tstri

ps

expe

ctat

ions

we

may

no

t be

able

to

acco

mm

odat

e de

man

d an

d w

e w

ill

lose

inve

stm

ent.

Evi

denc

e of

nee

d fo

r thi

s la

rger

are

a ov

er a

long

er

perio

d is

not

bei

ng

soug

ht b

ut is

like

ly

to b

e ve

ry d

iffic

ult

to p

rove

. Pla

nner

s ar

e lik

ely

to

dem

and

that

it is

ne

w g

row

th

atta

ched

to a

irpor

t no

t loc

al n

eed.

Cou

ld o

ver d

eliv

er la

nd

and

pote

ntia

l for

poo

r pe

rcep

tion

by th

e pu

blic

an

d m

arke

t. W

hils

t LD

O

does

not

pre

vent

oth

er

appr

oval

s on

the

sam

e la

nd th

ere

is p

oten

tial b

y es

tabl

ishi

ng L

DO

app

rova

l to

dra

w li

ne in

the

sand

an

d pr

even

t oth

er u

ses

for

the

site

.

Cov

enan

ts &

C

law

back

Th

ere

are

a nu

mbe

r o

claw

back

con

ditio

ns,

cove

nant

s an

d te

nanc

y co

nditi

ons

acro

ss th

e si

te.

The

two

prin

cipl

e on

es a

re

a 50

/50

claw

back

on

the

wes

t lan

d an

d a

poss

essi

on c

laus

e on

the

east

with

in a

FB

T.

If th

e te

st o

n th

e FB

T is

qua

litat

ive

then

the

maj

ority

of v

alue

cou

ld

be re

leas

ed fr

om th

is

optio

n an

d th

e FB

T te

st w

ill b

e sa

tisfie

d.

This

nee

ds le

gal

advi

ce.

Will

like

ly tr

igge

r the

cl

awba

ck p

rovi

sion

al

beit

quan

tum

will

be

low

er.

Doe

s th

is s

atis

fy th

e “s

ubst

antia

l” te

st in

re

latio

n to

the

dete

rmin

atio

n of

the

FBT

Will

rele

ase

FBT

poss

essi

on c

laus

e co

vena

nt o

n ea

ster

n la

nd a

s it

will

cle

arly

sat

isfy

“s

ubst

antia

l” te

st.

Will

not

trig

ger

claw

back

on

east

la

nd.

We

will

nee

d to

wai

t 1 y

ear

for p

osse

ssio

n of

the

land

af

ter t

he L

DO

is g

rant

ed.

This

will

be

a m

ajor

del

ay

that

cou

ld b

e m

itiga

ted

by

nego

tiatin

g w

ith F

B T

enan

t fo

r ear

ly o

ccup

atio

n.

Dis

plac

emen

tTh

e st

rate

gy fo

r the

bu

sine

ss P

ark

has

alw

ays

been

it is

targ

eted

at n

ew

dem

and

gene

rate

d fro

m

the

airp

ort s

ite o

r tha

t at

tract

ed to

the

airp

orts

’ co

nnec

tivity

. It i

s no

t abo

ut

loca

l dem

and.

This

sm

alle

r site

cou

ld

be a

suf

ficie

nt s

ize

to

acco

mm

odat

e th

e ne

w

dem

and

prop

osed

.

.Non

e.N

one

In o

rder

to g

ener

ate

suffi

cien

t dem

and

for t

he

larg

er a

rea

of la

nd. L

ocal

ne

ed m

ay n

eed

to b

e co

nsid

ered

. Thi

s m

ay

affe

ct p

lann

ing

and

cond

ition

s at

tach

ed to

LD

O.

Intr

oduc

tion

Pro’

sC

on’s

Pro’

sC

on’s

Land

Dis

posa

l It

wou

ld b

e a

clea

r ad

vant

age

if w

e co

uld

look

at

an

early

dis

posa

l of l

and

with

in th

e B

P to

pro

gres

s de

velo

pmen

t.

Del

iver

s la

nds

to th

e m

arke

t in

a ph

ased

ap

proa

ch d

irect

ly to

im

med

iate

nee

d.

Ris

k of

not

del

iver

ing

for t

he m

ost

mar

keta

ble/

deliv

erab

le la

nd

Will

rele

ase

land

ne

xt to

the

exis

ting

Air

Am

bula

nce

build

ing

whi

ch h

as

pote

ntia

l to

have

al

read

y es

tabl

ish

deve

lopm

ent

mom

entu

m.

Will

del

iver

an

expe

ctat

ion

of d

evel

opm

ent o

n la

nd

that

pos

sibl

y ha

s no

re

alis

tic c

hanc

e of

de

velo

pmen

t due

to

dem

and

in th

e sh

ort t

o m

ediu

m te

rm.

Oth

er u

ses

Oth

er u

ses

such

as

a H

otel

/pub

/rest

aura

nt h

ave

been

con

side

red

as a

par

t of

the

busi

ness

par

k pr

opos

al. O

ther

use

s su

ch

as re

tail

and

hous

ing

have

no

t bee

n co

nsid

ered

to

date

.

Thes

e ar

e no

t bei

ng

cons

ider

ed a

t the

m

omen

t as

a pa

rt of

LD

O 2

/EZ

but i

t is

not

too

late

to b

ring

thes

e in

to th

e 20

Ha

of d

ev.

Thes

e us

es m

ay w

ell

alte

r the

SO

and

the

requ

irem

ent f

or a

n E

IA. I

t will

cer

tain

ly

redu

ce th

e qu

antu

m

of d

evel

opm

ent d

own

from

20h

a.

The

scop

e fo

r wid

er

uses

is in

crea

sed

grea

tly w

ith th

e la

rger

dem

and

and

site

sca

le.

It is

impo

ssib

le to

ass

ess

the

alte

rnat

ives

at p

rese

nt

with

out n

eed

asse

ssm

ents

an

d di

rect

ion

from

pol

icy.

Appendix 4.1 – Air Quality

APPENDIX 4 DMRB MODEL VERIFICATION

Dispersion modelling is an inherently uncertain procedure with potential errors in the model output arising from either, or both, systematic or random errors.

Systematic errors occur where a distinct trend is apparent in the model output i.e. a tendency to under or over estimate known values. This type of error may arise where emissions have been underestimated, or particular characteristics of a sample location has not neen represented in the model. Whilst it is rarely possible to identify a specific reason for the systematic error, the errors can be quantified and allowed for by comparing modelled concentrations against monitored concentrations in order to derive a scaling factor. Monitored data itself has an associated uncertainty. Therefore, in the adjustment for systematic errors, it is best to calculate the scaling factor on the basis of data from 3 or more monitoring stations.

Random errors, as the name suggests, do not show a distinct trend and result in a scatter of modelled concentrations about monitored data even after an allowance for systematic error has been made. The degree of uncertainty i.e. random error, in the model results may be estimated by calculating the standard deviation of the verified modelled results.

Nitrogen oxide outputs from the DMRB Model were used to derive nitrogen dioxide concentrations. The updated empirical method (Defra 2009) to convert annual mean NOx to NO2 at roadside locations outside Greater London was used, using 2010 road traffic emission factors.

Table B2 and B 3 shows the details of the verification process and the factors generated to scale the model results to correct for systematic errors.

Since the correction of the modelled results relates to the road-side component of the pollutant only, the scaling factor is calculated by first removing the background contribution to the monitored and modelled NOx concentrations and then comparing the roadside components only.

The raw model result at all diffusion tube locations significantly under estimated the monitored concentrations gathered at monitoring sites in Newquay. Therefore, the calculation of an average scaling factor was attempted for all sampling locations. However comparing modelled and monitored NOx concentrations, there appeared to be two separate characteristic sample locations types. In addition trends a systematic over estimation by DMRB of the modelled NOx concentrations at receptor location 8, Mount Wise Mitchell Avenue.

The analysis of the systematic error in the DMRB modelling output led to the conclusion that two scaling factors are required.

The first bias adjustment factor (6.15) was calculated from the ratio derived from sample locations St Thomas Road, Quintrell Road and Treninnick Hill (Table A4.1) and will be applied to all kerbside receptor locations. The second first bias adjustment factor (2.55) was the direct ratio between roadside monitored NOx and Modelled NOx at sample locations Trevenson Road, Henver Road, Hillgrove Road and Mount Wise Roundabout/ Higher Town Road (Table A4.2). This will apply to receptors which are located at non-kerbside locations.

It has been assumed that the nitrogen dioxide factors apply to all pollutants.

Table A4.1: Verification of Nitrogen Dioxide Model Output for Kerbside Location Receptors

Diffusion tube location

ReceptorNumber

Total NO2

Monitored Period �g/m3

Total NO2Monitored adjusted for

Annual Period �g/m3

BackgroundNOx

�g/m3

Modelled Roadside

NOxContribution

�g/m3

Monitored Roadside

NOxContribution

�g/m3

Ratio of Monitored to

Modelled Roadside

Contributions19 St Thomas

Road R6 27.62 27.62 14.31 3.97 41.86 10.54

58 Quintrell Road

R1 17.07 17.07 9.58 3.05 21.67 7.10

Treninnick Hill R7 44.16 44.16 14.31 14.64 84.69 5.78

Bias factor Derived from Slope 6.15

Figure A4.1: Relationship between Modelled and Monitored NOx at Kerbside Sampling locations

41.86

21.67

84.69

y = 6.1495xR² = 0.8348

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 5 10 15 20 25

Mon

itor

edN

Ox

(��g/

m3 )

Modelled NOx (�g/m3)

Relationship between Modelled and Monitored NOx at Kerbside Locations

Table A4.2: Verification of Nitrogen Dioxide Model Output for non- Kerbside Location Receptors

Diffusion tube location

ReceptorNumber

Total NO2

Monitored Period �g/m3

Total NO2Monitored adjusted for

Annual Period �g/m3

BackgroundNOx

�g/m3

Modelled Roadside

NOxContribution

�g/m3

Monitored Roadside

NOxContribution

�g/m3

Ratio of Monitored to

Modelled Roadside

Contributions

Trevenson roadR2 29.94 20.35 9.58 19.78 49.99 2.53

Henver RoadR3 22.49 22.49 9.94 11.89 32.93 2.77

Hillgrove RoadR4 18.28 18.28 9.94 9.96 23.96 2.41

Mount Wise Roundabout/High

er Town Rd

R9 27.78 127.78 11.78 17.37 43.67 2.51

Bias factor derived from slope 2.55

Figure A4.2: Relationship between Modelled and Monitored NOx at non-Kerbside Sampling locations

49.99

32.93

23.96

43.67y = 2.5466xR² = 0.9762

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25

Mon

itor

edN

Ox

(��g/

m3 )

Modelled NOx (�g/m3)

Relationship between Modelled and Monitored NOx at Non-Kerbside Locations

Appendix 5.1 – Archaeological and Historical Desk-based Assessment and Geophysical Survey Report

Newquay Airport Business ParkSt Columb Minor and St Columb Major

Cornwall

Heritage Desk-Based Assessment

forParsons Brinkerhoff

on behalf of Cornwall Development Company

CA Project: 3957 CA Report: 12274

September 2012

Newquay Airport Business Park St Columb Minor and St Columb Major

Cornwall

Heritage Desk-Based Assessment

CA Project: 3957 CA Report: 12274

prepared by Rosemary Blackwell, Heritage Consultant

date 28 September 2012

checked by Gail Stoten, Principal Heritage Consultant


approved by Gail Stoten, Principal Heritage Consultant

signed


issue 01

This report is confidential to the client. Cotswold Archaeology accepts no responsibility or liability to any third party to whom this report, or any part of it, is made known. Any such party relies upon this report entirely

at their own risk. No part of this report may be reproduced by any means without permission.

© Cotswold Archaeology Building 11, Kemble Enterprise Park, Kemble, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 6BQ t. 01285 771022 f. 01285 771033 e. [email protected]

© Cotswold Archaeology

3

Newquay Airport Business Park, Cornwall: Heritage Desk-Based Assessment

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 6

Outline.................................................................................................................. 6

Location and landscape context .......................................................................... 6

Scope................................................................................................................... 6

2. METHODOLOGY................................................................................................. 7

Previous archaeological investigations ................................................................ 9

3. PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT .......................................................................... 9

Planning policy and guidance context.................................................................. 9

National Planning Policy Framework ................................................................... 10

Local planning policy............................................................................................ 12

4. BASELINE SURVEY............................................................................................ 12

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 12

Designated heritage assets ................................................................................. 12

Summary of non-designated or potential heritage assets.................................... 13

Geology, topography and the palaeoenvironment ............................................... 13

Prehistoric (pre- AD 43) and Romano-British (AD 43 – AD410) .......................... 13

Medieval (1066-1539) .......................................................................................... 14

Post-medieval (1540-1800) and Modern (1801-present) ..................................... 15

5. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... 18

Known and potential heritage assets ................................................................... 18

6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 19

APPENDIX A: GAZETTEER OF RECORDED HERITAGE ASSETS............................... 21

APPENDIX B: LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: EXTRACT FROM THE RESTORMEL

BROUGH COUNCIL PLAN (ADOPTED OCTOBER 2001) .............................................. 22

APPENDIX C: EXTRACT FROM THE HEDGEROWS REGULATIONS 1997................. 23


4


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1 Site location plan

Fig. 2 Recorded heritage assets

Fig. 3 Extract from the map of 1836

Fig. 4 Extract from the First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1888

Fig. 5 Extract from the Second Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1907

Fig. 6 Later 20th-century barn, view to south-west

Fig. 7 Remains of a building first depicted on the Second Edition Ordnance Survey map of

1907, view to north-west


5


SUMMARY

Project Name: Newquay Airport Business Park

Location: St Columb Minor and St Columb Major, Cornwall

NGR: SW 8750 6340

In August 2012 Cotswold Archaeology was commissioned by Parsons Brinkerhoff, on behalf

of Cornwall Development Company, to carry out a Heritage Desk-Based Assessment of land

at the proposed Newquay Airport Business Park, St Columb Minor and St Columb Major,

Cornwall. The objective of the assessment was to identify the nature and extent of the

recorded heritage resource within both the site and its immediate environs.

The site of an 18th-century farmstead, including a smithy, known as Parkyn’s Shop, was

formerly located in the south-western area of the site. Then-extant buildings at Parkyn’s

Shop, and associated below-ground remains, were recorded and subsequently removed

during works associated with Newquay Airport Southern Access Road. It is likely that any

then-surviving below-ground remains of other buildings depicted at Parkyn’s Shop on historic

cartographic sources were also removed at this time.

Extant remains of a building and boundary wall first depicted on the Second Edition

Ordnance Survey map of 1907, in the eastern area of the site, are considered to be of

negligible historic significance.

The field name Brick Moor indicates that clay extraction may have taken place in the

northern area of the site. Any associated below ground remains are likely to be of negligible

historic significance, at most.

Cornish Hedges within the site on the lines of historic Parish/Township boundaries are

considered to have statutory protection under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. These

Cornish Hedges are heritage assets of historic interest and are considered to be of low

historic significance.

There is potential for currently unrecorded prehistoric or Romano-British remains to survive

below-ground within the site.


6


1. INTRODUCTION

Outline

1.1 In August 2012 Cotswold Archaeology was commissioned by Parsons Brinkerhoff,

on behalf of Cornwall Development Company, to carry out a Heritage Desk-Based

Assessment of land at the proposed Newquay Airport Business Park, St Columb

Minor and St Columb Major, Cornwall. This heritage desk-based assessment has

been undertaken to inform an Environmental Statement.

Location and landscape context

1.2 The proposed development site is approximately 36.3ha in size, and is located to

the south-west of Newquay Airport (formerly RAF St Mawgan), north of the A3059.

The recently-constructed Newquay Airport Southern Access Road to the airport

crosses north/south through the western area of the site, within a cutting. A

construction site compound is located within the south-western area of the site,

west of the access road. To the north of this compound is a large compacted spoil

bank, presumably associated with the construction of Newquay Airport Southern

Access Road.

1.3 The area of the site to the east of the access road comprises agricultural fields, in

use as sheep pasture at the time of the site visit, with the exception of the far

eastern field which was fallow. A wooded belt, which bounds an unnamed stream,

extends into the northern area of the site. Field boundaries within the site are

predominantly Cornish Hedge (a bank with stone facing and topped with

vegetation), and Hedge-Bank, where no stone facing was visible. The eastern part

of the southern boundary is fence and the central and northern parts of the northern

boundary are within a wooded belt.

Scope

1.4 The content of this report has been guided by the Tender Brief produced by

Cornwall Development Company (CDC 2012). The Tender Brief includes a

requirement for a geophysical survey, which is being undertaken in parallel with the

production of this desk-based assessment.


7


1.5 This assessment focuses upon the cultural heritage resource of the site itself,

although the heritage resource of a minimum 500m ‘buffer’ around the site has also

been assessed in detail, referred to as the ‘study area’ (Fig. 2).

1.6 The main objectives of the desk-based assessment are:

� to identify designated heritage assets within the site and study area;

� to gather information on non-designated recorded heritage assets;

� to assess the above baseline information and offer an analysis of the potential

for currently unrecorded heritage assets within the site; and

� to assess the significance of the heritage assets, including elements of setting

that positively contribute to significance.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 The methodology is based on the guidance provided in the Institute for

Archaeologists ‘Standards and Guidance for Historic Environment Desk-Based

Assessment’ (IfA 2011).

2.2 This desk-based assessment has considered a 500m study area centred on the site

(Fig. 2). The size of the study area ensured that data sources provide sufficient

information about the proposed allocation site and its surrounding landscape from

which to assess known and potential impacts on the heritage resource.

2.3 Known heritage assets within the study area discussed in the text are reported in

Section 4. A gazetteer of known and potential heritage assets in the study area has

been compiled (Appendix A). All assets are referred to in the text by a unique

reference number 01, etc... The locations of these assets can be seen on Figure 2.

2.4 The baseline survey involved consultation of readily available archaeological and

historical information from documentary and cartographic sources. The major

repositories of information consulted comprised:

English Heritage National Heritage List

� World Heritage Sites

� Scheduled Monuments


8


� Listed buildings

� Registered Parks and Gardens

� Registered Battlefields

Cornwall and Scilly Historic Environment Record (CSSHER)

� Database of known archaeological sites, findspots, historic buildings and

previous archaeological works;

� Published and unpublished documentary sources (including development

control site reports);

� Extensive Urban Survey.

Cornwall Record Office and Cornish Studies Library

� Published documentary sources; and

� Historic maps and photographs.

National Monuments Record (NMR)

� AMIE (Archives and Monuments Information, England) data including known

archaeological sites, findspots and previous archaeological works; and

� Aerial photography collections.

Online sources

� Including the British Geological Survey (BGS) Geology of Britain Viewer and

Local Plan information from the Restormel Borough Council website.

2.5 Site visits were undertaken on 23 April and 27 September 2012 to identify any

visible potential heritage assets not recorded by the baseline sources and to more

fully understand the potential constraints, if any, to the proposed development.


9


Previous archaeological investigations

2.6 Three programmes of archaeological work are recorded within the study area, two

of which extended into part of the site. Recorded archaeological work comprises:

� A programme of works in 2011 associated with Newquay Airport Southern

Access Road, which crosses the site (Fig. 2, 1; AS 2010; CC 2011a). Works

included desk-based assessment, English Heritage Level 3 builing survey of

now-demolished buildings at Parkyn’s shop (Fig. 2, 17), geophysical survey

(Fig. 2, 1a), and a watching brief following topsoil-stripping associated with

road construction (Fig. 2, 1b);

� A programme of works in 2010 associated with a proposed Solar Farm c.

350m west of the site (Fig. 2, 2; CC 2010). Work included desk-based

assessment, geophysical survey and a watching brief on geotechnical pits.

� A Historic Environment Assessment and Characterisation of Newquay

Cornwall Airport, which covered the area of the site (Fig. 2, 3).

2.7 Geophysical Survey covering the western area of the site not covered by Newquay

Airport Southern Access Road was undertaken in April 2012 (Stratascan 2012).

Geophysical Survey covering the remainder of the site is currently being

undertaken. The combined results of the geophysical surveys will be incorporated

into the Environmental Statement.

3. PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

Planning policy and guidance context

3.1 The assessment has been written within the following legislative, planning policy and

guidance context:

� National Heritage Act 1983 (amended 2002),

� Town and Country Planning Act (1990)

� Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act (1990)

� The Setting of Heritage Assets: English Heritage Guidance (2011)

� English Heritage Conservation Principles: policies and guidance for the

sustainable management of the historic environment (2008)

� National Planning Policy Framework (2012)


10


National Planning Policy Framework

3.2 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out planning policies relating to

‘conserving and enhancing the historic environment’. It defines the historic

environment as ‘all aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction

between people and places through time, including all surviving physical remains of

past human activity, whether visible, buried or submerged, and landscaped and

planted or managed flora.’ It further classifies a ‘heritage asset’ as ‘a building,

monument, site, place, area or landscape indentified as having a degree of

significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage

interest.

3.3 Heritage assets include designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local

planning authority (including local listing). Policies relate to both the treatment of the

assets themselves and their settings, both of which are a material consideration in

development management decision making.

3.4 The NPPF states that “The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the

achievement of sustainable development” and that there are “three dimensions to

sustainable development: economic, social and environmental”. The role the

environment will play is described as “contributing to protecting and enhancing our

natural, built and historic environment; and as part of this, helping to improve

biodiversity, use of natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and

mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy”.

3.5 Within the over-arching roles that the planning system will play, a set of 12 “core

land-use planning principles” have been developed to underpin place-shaping and

decision making. The 10th principle is:

� “conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so

that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and

future generations”

3.6 When determining planning applications local planning authorities should take

account of:

� “the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage

assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;


11


� the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to

sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

� the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local

character and distinctiveness.”

3.7 Further to this, local planning authorities can request that the applicant should

describe “the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution

made by their setting”. The level of detail required in the assessment should be

“proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand

the potential impact of the proposal on their significance”. “Where a site on which

development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets

with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to

submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field

evaluation.”

3.8 Local planning authorities should take this assessment into account when

considering the impact of a proposed development, “to avoid or minimise conflict

between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal”.

3.9 A key policy within the NPPF is that “when considering the impact of a proposed

development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should

be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the

weight should be.”

3.10 “Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage

asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any

harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or

loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial

harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably

scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed

buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites,

should be wholly exceptional.”

3.11 However, where a proposed development will lead to “less than substantial harm to

the significance of a designated heritage asset”, this harm should be weighed

against the public benefits of the proposal.


12


3.12 With regard to non-designated heritage assets specific policy is provided in that a

balanced judgement will be required having due regard to the scale of any harm or

loss and the significance of the heritage asset affected.

Local planning policy

3.13 Local planning policy is detailed in the Restormel Borough Council Plan (adopted

October 2001) Saved policies. Relevant policies comprise Policy 11, 12, 25 and 26,

reproduced in Appendix B.

4. BASELINE SURVEY

Introduction

4.1 This section provides an overview of the historical and archaeological background of

the study area, in order to provide a better understanding of the context and

significance of the cultural heritage resource that may be affected by development.

This assessment then determines the significance of any affected heritage assets

(Chapter 5 of this report) and assesses the potential for encountering buried

archaeological remains within the proposed development site.

Designated heritage assets

International designations

4.2 No World Heritage Sites or sites included on the Tentative List of Future

Nominations for World Heritage Sites (July 2010) are situated within the site or its

vicinity.

National designations

4.3 There are no Scheduled Monuments, Registered Parks and Gardens or Registered

Battlefields located within the site or the study area.

4.4 A Grade II Listed milestone is located on the south side of the A3059, c. 430m west

of the site (Fig. 2, 4). A second Grade II Listed milestone is located c. 80m east of

the site, also to the south of the A3059 (Fig. 2, 22). Grade II Listed buildings at

Nanswydhen Farm are located c. 500m south of the site (Fig. 2, 5).


13


Regional and local designations

4.5 No Conservation Areas are located within the site or the study area.

Summary of non-designated or potential heritage assets

4.6 A group of now demolished post-medieval buildings, known as Parkyn’s Shop, is

recorded within the south-western area of the site (Fig. 2, 17). Then-extant buildings

were recorded during works associated with Newquay Airport Southern Access

Road, and have since been removed (Fig. 2, 1). It is likely that any then-surviving

below-ground remains of other buildings recorded at Parkyn’s Shop on historic

cartographic sources were also removed during works associated with Newquay

Airport Southern Access Road.

4.7 Cornish Hedge historic Parish/Township boundaries within the site are considered to

have statutory protection under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

4.8 There may be potential for currently unrecorded prehistoric or Romano-British

remains to survive below-ground within the site.

Geology, topography and the palaeoenvironment

4.9 The geology of the site is mapped as Dartmouth Group slate, siltstone and

sandstone, overlain by Meadfoot Group interbedded slate and sandstone in the

southern areas. No drift deposits are recorded within the site (BGS 2012).

Prehistoric (pre- AD 43) and Romano-British (AD 43 – AD410)

4.10 Cropmarks potentially representing possible prehistoric or Romano-British

settlement have been identified within and immediately west of the study area.

These comprise two groups of cropmarks c. 500m west of the site (Fig. 2, 6 and 7),

one group c. 550m south-west (Fig. 2, 8), and one at the c. 850m west (Fig. 2, 9).

4.11 Cropmarks c. 500m west of the site potentially represent a small sub-circular

enclosure (Fig. 2, 6), and a larger sub-circular enclosure with an internal hut circle

and possible adjacent hut circle (Fig. 2, 7). However, geophysical survey in this area

did not identify any associated anomalies, nor did it identify any anomalies

suggestive of prehistoric or Roman settlement (Fig. 2, 2; CC 2010). It is probable

therefore that the identified cropmarks do not represent below-ground

archaeological features. The geophysical survey did identify anomalies in other

areas consistent with the below-ground remains of ditches, some of which may be of


14


prehistoric or Romano-British origin as they are not aligned with the extant field

system.

4.12 A group of cropmarks c. 550m to the south-west of the site potentially represent four

small enclosures and a trackway (Fig. 2, 8). A circular cropmark which may

represent a round (a single-ditched enclosed settlement of Iron Age/Romano-British

date) is recorded c. 850m west of the site (Fig. 2, 9). Field names suggesting the

possible presence of a round in the vicinity are recorded at the northern-western

edge of the study area (Fig. 2, 10).

4.13 Geophysical survey within the site, associated with Newquay Airport Southern

Access Road, identified three short linear anomalies which potentially represent the

below-ground remains of ditches of prehistoric or Romano-British origin (Fig. 2, 1a).

No prehistoric or Romano-British features were recorded during the archaeological

watching brief (Fig. 2, 1b; CC2011a).

4.14 A curvilinear banked enclosure is visible on aerial photographs to the north-east of

the site (Fig. 2, 24). The feature is undated, although its origins as a prehistoric or

Romano-British site cannot be ruled out at this stage.

Early medieval (AD 410 – 1066)

4.15 The place name prefix ‘Tre’ has pre-Norman origins and may be indicative of early

medieval settlement. Examples the vicinity include Treissac (Fig. 2, 11) and

Trebarber (Fig. 2, 12), to the south and south-west of the site respectively, and

Trenoon (Fig. 2, 13), to the north. The site was most likely part of the agricultural

hinterland in the early medieval period.

Medieval (1066-1539)

4.16 The main area of the site is located within the historic parishes of St Columb Minor

and St Columb Major, with the boundary between the two running north/south

through the site. The historic boundary between these parishes and St Mawgan

Parish is along the northern edge of the site.

4.17 Medieval settlement in the vicinity is recorded at Nanswhyden, c. 500m south of the

site (Fig. 2, 14). A medieval field system is recorded in the northern part of the study

area (Fig. 2, 15), associated with settlement at Carnanton c. 1km north-east of the

site, since removed by the construction of the airfield. Medieval ridge and furrow is


15


recorded in the vicinity c. 900m south-west of the site (Fig. 2, 16), at Trebarber. Field

boundaries within the site are relatively straight and uniform, indicating that it was

not enclosed until the post-medieval period. The area of the site may have

comprised rough grassland, such as was used for common land, in the medieval

period (CSHER). A watching-brief on the Newquay Airport Southern Access Road,

which crossed the site, identified the below-ground remains of undated ditches and

suggested that they were of medieval origin (CC 2011, 5). These ditches were

aligned with the post-medieval field system (see below), and as such a post-

medieval date is considered more likely.

Post-medieval (1540-1800) and Modern (1801-present)

4.18 The site of a post-medieval smithy, Parkyn’s Shop, is recorded within the south-

western area of the site (Fig. 2, 17). The smithy was part of a small farmstead,

located at the St Columb Minor/St Columb Major parish boundary. Parkyn’s Shop is

also recorded as the home of the 19th-century wrestler Richard Parkyn, known as

‘The Great Parkyn’ (Ellery 2000, 27; Rabey 1979, 55), and a commemorative stone

has been erected within the site, adjacent to the road. Then-extant buildings at

Parkyn’s Shop, and associated below-ground remains of built structures, associated

with Parkyn’s Shop, were recorded during works associated with Newquay Airport

Southern Access Road, and have since been removed (Fig. 2, 1). The development

of the site as recorded on the historic cartographic sources is described below,

followed by a brief summary of the Parkyn’s Shop buildings. A detailed discussion of

Parkyn’s Shop can be found in the Cultural Heritage Assessment for Newquay

Airport Southern Access Road (AS 2010).

Development of the site

4.19 The site is first depicted in detail on a 1836 map of the Townships of Nanswhyden

and Trevithick in the Parish of St Columb Major, and Nantornan in St Columb Minor

(Fig. 3). This depicts the main area of the site situated across agricultural fields, with

open downland at its eastern extent. A trackway bounded the western edge of the

site (Fig. 3, A), and a small group of buildings, labelled Parkyn’s Shop, are shown

within the south-western area of the site (Figs. 2 and 3, 17). Buildings in this area

are depicted to the west and east of the historic St Columb Major/St Columb Minor

Parish boundary (also the boundary between Nantornan and Nanswhyden). The

boundary between Nanswhyden and Trevithick crosses the eastern area of the site

(Fig. 3, D). The northern site boundary is the historic boundary with St Mawgan

Parish. A list of field names accompanying the map records a field called Brick Moor


16


in the northern area of the site (Fig. 3, B), suggesting that there may have been clay

extraction in this area. Land use for this field is recorded as Wet & Furze. The

eastern area of the site extended into Great Down, an area of unenclosed Furze &

Heath (Fig. 3, C).

4.20 The entirety of the site is covered by mid-19th century Tithe Maps for St Columb

Major and St Columb Minor. No major changes are depicted on these sources. The

Tithe Apportionment Register for St Columb Major indicates that the fields in the

central area of the site formed part of agricultural land associated with Parkyn’s

Shop.

4.21 The western area of the site is depicted on a map of 1847 (not illustrated). No major

changes are shown in this area on this source.

4.22 By the time of the First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1888 (Fig. 3), buildings at

Parkyn’s Shop to the east of the parish boundary had been removed. Two groups of

buildings remained extant: a structure immediately adjacent to the parish boundary,

and a group of buildings to its north-west. This map also indicates that there had

been some loss of field boundaries by this time, and that the field at the eastern

extent of the site had been enclosed from open land (Figs. 3 and 4, C).

4.23 A building is depicted within a small enclosed area in the eastern area of the site at

Trevithick Downs on the Second Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1907 (Fig. 5, E).

This is a narrow linear building. At the time of the site visit two walls were extant in

this area, most likely associated with the former building, and its adjacent boundary

wall. The function of the building is not known, although it may have been subsidiary

to the adjacent building, immediately east of the site, which is extant and comprises

a two-storey stone-built dwelling.

Parkyn’s Shop

4.24 A Level 3 building survey of three standing buildings at Parkyn’s Shop in 2011, in

advance of their demolition, recorded that two of the buildings appeared to be of

18th-century origin (AS 2010). These two buildings correspond with the structures

shown on the First Edition Ordnance Survey map (Fig. 4). These comprised simple

single-roomed structures, of a single phase of construction. The building directly

adjacent to the road was identified as the smithy. The building to its north-west was

identified as a probable dwelling. Now demolished buildings to the east of the parish


17


boundary are recorded in the accompanying Apportionment Register as House and

Garden. It is likely that any below-ground remains then surviving were removed

during the construction of Newquay Airport Southern Access Road.

4.25 One extant building was noted at Parkyn’s Shop during the site visit. This is a recent

concrete, timber and steel barn (Fig. 5, F). It incorporates the remains of a low

boundary wall into its northern elevation (Fig. 6), which most likely originated as a

garden wall to the rear of buildings at Parkyn’s Shop (Figs. 3-5, 17).

Hedgerows

4.26 Cornish Hedges which mark the historic St Columb Minor/St Columb Major parish

boundary (also the historic Nantornan/Nanswhyden Township Boundary) are

considered to have statutory protection under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997

(criteria for archaeology and history, reproduced in Appendix B). Cornish

Hedge/Hedge Banks along the historic Nanswhyden/Trevithick Township Boundary

and along the St Columb Major/St Mawgan Parish boundary are also considered to

have statutory protection (illustrated on Fig. 5).

Historic Landscape Character

4.27 Historic Landscape Characterisation data provided by CSHER defines the main area

of the site as Post-medieval Enclosed Land. This is defined as land enclosed in the

17th/18th and 19th centuries, which may formerly have comprised rough grassland

and Medieval commons (see also Medieval above). The wooded belt within the

northern area of the site is defined as Plantations and Scrubland.

The wider study area

4.28 A Grade II Listed milestone is recorded c. 430m west of the site, south of the A3059

(Fig. 2, 4). A second Grade II Listed milestone is recorded c. 80m to the east of the

site (Fig. 2, 22). Elements of setting which positively contribute to the significance of

these structures comprise the road, which enables their function to be understood.

4.29 Post-medieval settlement in the wider study area includes Grade II Listed buildings

at Nanswydhen (Fig. 2, 5).

4.30 One other post-medieval site, a small quarry, is recorded within the study area (Fig.

2, 18). This was located to the north of the unnamed stream which forms the

northern site boundary.


18


4.31 RAF St Mawgan, located immediately north of the site was constructed in 1942-43

(Fig. 2, 19). It continued to operate as a military airfield through the late 20th century

before becoming a civilian airport in the early 21st century. No airfield features have

been identified within the site. WWII sites recorded in the vicinity include military

camps (Fig. 2, 21) and radar stations (Fig. 2, 20 and 23).

5. CONCLUSIONS

Known and potential heritage assets

5.1 The site of an 18th-century farmstead, including a smithy, known as Parkyn’s Shop,

was formerly located within the south-western area of the site. Extant buildings and

associated below-ground remains of built structures, associated with Parkyn’s Shop,

were recorded during works associated with Newquay Airport Southern Access

Road, and have since been removed (Fig. 2, 1). It is likely that any then-surviving

below-ground remains of other buildings shown on historic cartographic sources

were also removed at this time. A short stretch of boundary wall, associated with a

garden to the rear of the Parkyn’s Shop buildings, is extant within the site, and has

been incorporated into a modern field barn. This boundary wall is considered to be

of negligible historic significance.

5.2 Walls associated with a building/boundary wall recorded on the Second Edition

Ordnance Survey map of 1907 are extant in the eastern area of the site. These walls

are considered to be of negligible historic significance. Any associated below-

ground remains are likely to be of, at most, negligible historic significance.

5.3 The field name Brick Moor indicates potential for former clay extraction within the

northern area of the site. Any below-ground remains are likely to be of negligible historic significance, at best.

5.4 Cornish Hedge/Hedge banks along historic Parish/Township boundaries are

considered to have statutory protection under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997.

These Cornish Hedges are heritage assets historic interest and are considered to be

of low historic significance.


19


5.5 Cropmarks potentially representing the below-ground remains of prehistoric or

Romano-British settlement are recorded in the western part of the study area. There

is potentially for currently unrecorded prehistoric or Romano-British below-ground

remains within the site.

6. REFERENCES

AS (Archaeological Surveys Ltd.) 2010 Newquay Cornwall Southern Access Route:

cultural heritage assessment, typescript report produced for Entec

BGS (British Geological Survey) 2012 Geology of Britain Viewer, 1:50,000

geological mapping, solid and drift, viewed online April 2012

CC (Cornwall Council) 2010 Proposed Kernow Solar Farm, Newquay, Cornwall:

archaeological assessment, typescipt report

CC (Cornwall Council) 2011a Newquay Airport Southern Access Road, Cornwall:

archaeological watching-brief, typescipt report

CC (Cornwall Council) 2011b Newquay Cornwall Airport: historic environment

assessment and characterisation, typescript report

CDC (Cornwall Development Company) 2012 Aerohub Enterprise Zone @

Newquay Cornwall Airport – Business Park: Brief for Environmental Impact

Assessment TEN 212, 20th July 2012, typescript report

Ellery, P. 2000 St Columb Minor: memoirs and parish history, St Columb Minor

Parish Map Project Committee, Newquay

Rabey, I. 1979 The Book of St Columb & St Mawgan, Barracuda Books Ltd,

Buckingham

Stratascan 2012 Geophysical survey report: Newquay Aerohub, typescript report


20


Cartographic sources

1746 Map of Cornwall surveyed by Thomas Martyn

1836 Plan of Nanswhyden and Trevithick in St Columb Major, and Nantoman in St

Columb Minor, CRO CF/1/3005 1839 St Columb Minor Tithe map, CRO digital copy

1840 St Columb Major Tithe map, CRO digital copy

1847 Plan of East Wheal Rose mining district, CRO AS220/24 1888 First Edition Ordnance Survey map, 6” series, sheet 32SW

1888 First Edition Ordnance Survey map, 25” series, sheet 32.14

1907 Second Edition Ordnance Survey map, 6” series, sheet 32SW

CRO Cornwall Record Office


21


APPENDIX A: GAZETTEER OF RECORDED HERITAGE ASSETS

No. Description Period Status NGR (all SW)

CSHER ref.NMRref.EH ref.

MajorSource

1 Program of archaeological works (geophysical survey, watching brief and building survey): Newquay Airport Southern Access Road

Post-medieval

- 8713 6341 3011 3359 1544868

AS 2011 CC 2011a

2 Program of archaeological works: Kernow Solar Farm

Prehistoric - 8660 6335 3252 3265 3359 1535751

CC 2010

3 Historic Environment Assessment and Characterisation: Newquay Airport

- - 8734 6426 3543 CC 2011b

4 Milestone at SW 867 629 Post-medieval

Grade II Listed 867 629 1327367 EH

5 Grade II Listed buildings at Nanswhyden Farmhouse: Kitchen Garden Walls north-west of Nanswydhen Farmhouse; Nanswydhen Farmhouse and associated buildings.

Post-medieval

Grade II Listed 8757 6265 1312110 1144119 1327413 1137869 1327413 1144120 1144119 48505

EH

6 Cropmarks: possible Prehistoric/Romano-British settlement

Undated - 8666 6360 33258 CSHER


Undated - 8663 6337 33257 CSHER


Undated - 8665 6273 33253 CSHER


Undated - 8625 6311 33256 CSHER

10 Field name: possible site of Iron Age/Romano-British round

Undated - 8669 6400 8514 CSHER

11 Early medieval settlement: Treissac Early medieval

- 8690 6274 17417 CSHER

12 Early medieval settlement: Trebarvah Early medieval

- 8643 6259 17068 CSHER

13 Early medieval settlement: Trenoon Early medieval

- 8691 6425 17581 CSHER

14 Medieval settlement: Nanswhyden including medieval dovecote

Medieval - 8753 6267 22217 3874

CSHER

15 Medieval field system: Carnanton Medieval - 8700 6400 20746 CSHER16 Medieval ridge and furrow: Trebarber Medieval - 8635 6246 33246 CSHER17 Parkyn’s shop Post-

medieval - 8740 6318 9211 CSHER

18 Quarry Post-medieval

- 8728 6366 26016 CSHER

19 St Mawgan Airfield Modern - 8740 6406 1411246 CC 2011b 20 Trebarber radar station Modern - 8646 6294 33255 CSHER21 Trevithick Downs WWII military camp Modern - 8775 6322 33295 CSHER22 Milestone at SW 882634 Post-

medieval - 8670 6290 1137857 EH

23 Radar station Modern - 8825 6311 33248 CSHER24 Cropmark: curvilinear enclosure 8830 6392 56493 CSHER


22


APPENDIX B: LOCAL PLANNING POLICY: EXTRACT FROM THE RESTORMEL BROUGH COUNCIL PLAN (ADOPTED OCTOBER 2001)

Policy 11 (Protecting the Borough’s Heritage):The Council will seek to conserve and enhance the landscapes, features and habitats of heritage importance within the Borough.

Policy 12 (1) Proposals for interpretation and educational facilities which support greater awareness and incorporate positive management of landscapes, features and habitats of heritage importance will be permitted. (2) Where appropriate, opportunities will be taken to make conditions and enter into agreements relating to their conservation and proper management.

Policy 25 (Scheduled Ancient Monuments): Development proposals which would damage scheduled ancient monuments or other archaeological remains of national importance or their settings will not be permitted.

Policy 26 (Local Archaeological Sites): Development proposals which adversely affect locally important archaeological sites held on the county sites and monuments record or identified as a result of a prior archaeological investigation will only be permitted where: (1) physical preservation in-situ is not feasible and the importance of the development outweighs the case for preservation of the remains; and (2) satisfactory arrangements are made for the excavation and recording of the remains before or during development.

Policy 27 (Archaeological Assessments): Where there is evidence to suggest that significant remains may exist on the site of a proposed development the extent and importance of which are unknown, an archaeological assessment will be carried out prior to the granting of planning permission.


23


APPENDIX C: EXTRACT FROM THE HEDGEROWS REGULATIONS 1997

Extracted From Statutory Instruments 1997 No. 1160 The Hedgerows Regulations 1997, Schedule 1: Additional criteria for determining ‘Important’ hedgerows;

PART II CRITERIAArchaeology and history

1. The hedgerow marks the boundary, or part of the boundary, of at least one historic parish or township; and for this purpose “historic” means existing before 1850.

2. The hedgerow incorporates an archaeological feature which is- (a) included in the schedule of monuments compiled by the Secretary of State under section 1 (schedule of monuments) of the Ancient Monuments and Scheduled Areas Act 1979(g); or (b) recorded at the relevant date in a sites and Monuments Record.

3. The hedgerow- (a) is situated wholly or partly within an archaeological site included or recorded as mentioned in paragraph 2 or on land adjacent to and associated with such a site; and (b) is associated with any monument or feature on that site.

4. The hedgerow- (a) marks the boundary of a pre-1600 AD estate or manor recorded at the relevant date in a sites and Monuments Record or on a document held at that date at a Record Office; or (b) is visibly related to any building or feature of such an estate or manor.

5. The hedgerow- (a) is recorded in a document held at the relevant date at a Record Office as an integral part of a field system pre-dating the Inclosure acts(a); or (b) is part of, or visibly related to, any building or other feature associated with such a system, and that system- (i) is substantially complete; or

(ii) is of a pattern which is recorded in a document prepared before the relevant date by a local planning authority, within the meaning of the 1990 Act(b), for the purposes of development control within the authority’s area, as a key landscape characteristic

Cornwall

CotswoldArchaeology

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE

FIGURE NO.DATEREVISIONSCALE@A4

PROJECT NO.DRAWN BYAPPROVED BY

N

0 1km

Site location plan

Newquay Airport Business ParkCornwall

13-09-2012001:25,000

3957IAPJM 1

Reproduced from the 2003 Ordnance Survey Explorer map with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright Cotswold Archaeological Trust 100002109

c

Cirencester 01285 771022

Milton Keynes 01908 218320

Andover 01264 326549

w www.cotswoldarchaeology.co.uk

e [email protected]

8686

86

64 63 62

23

13

1510

1a

18

3

1b

117

6

7

2

19

9

20

8

4

16

12

11

514

21

24

22

Cotswold

Archa

eology

Cir

ence

ster

012

85 7

7102

2

Milt

on

Key

nes

019

08 2

1832

0

An

dov

er 0

1264

326

549

w w

ww

.cot

swol

darc

haeo

logy

.co.

uk

e en

quiri

es@

cots

wol

darc

haeo

logy

.co.

uk

N

PR

OJE

CT

TITL

E

FIG

UR

E T

ITLE

FIG

UR

E N

O.

DAT

ER

EV

ISIO

NS

CA

LE@

A3

PR

OJE

CT

NO

.D

RAW

N B

YA

PP

RO

VE

D B

Y

050

0m

Rec

orde

d he

ritag

e as

sets

New

quay

Airp

ort B

usin

ess

Par

kC

ornw

all

13-0

9-20

1200 1:

10,0

00

3957

IA PJM

2

Rep

rodu

ced

from

the

2003

Ord

nanc

e S

urve

y E

xplo

rer

map

with

the

perm

issi

onof

Ord

nanc

e S

urve

y on

beh

alf o

f The

Con

trol

ler

of H

er M

ajes

ty's

Sta

tione

ry O

ffice

C

row

n co

pyrig

ht C

otsw

old

Arc

haeo

logy

Ltd

100

0021

09

c

site

stud

y ar

ea

early

med

ieva

l

med

ieva

l

post

-med

ieva

l

mod

ern

unda

ted

prev

ious

arc

haeo

logi

cal w

orks

area

of g

eoph

ysic

al s

urve

y

geop

hysi

cal a

nom

aly

(sel

ecte

d)

area

of w

atch

ing

brie

f

Gra

de II

Lis

ted

build

ing

crop

mar

ks

exte

nt o

f airf

ield

CotswoldArchaeology



Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



4

3

3 Extract from the map of 1836

4 Extract from the First Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1888

Historic mapping


13-09-2012001:8000 (approx.)

3957IAPJM 3 & 4

NANSWHYDEN

NANTORNANTREVITHICK

17

A

B

D

C

17

A

B

D

C

CotswoldArchaeology



Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



site

Important Hedegrow

later 20th-century building - extant

modern road corridor

5

5 Extract from the Second Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1907

Historic mapping


13-09-2012001:8000 (approx.)

3957IAPJM 5

A

F

E

CotswoldArchaeology



Andover 01264 326549


e [email protected]

PROJECT TITLE

FIGURE TITLE



7

6

6 Later 20th-century barn, view ot south-west

7 Remains of a building first depicted on the Second Edition Ordnance Survey map of 1907, view to north-west

Photographs


28-09-201200N/A

3957LGPJM 6 & 7

Geophysical Survey Report Newquay Aerohub

for

Cotswold Archaeology

October 2012

Job ref. J3180

Richard Smalley BA (Hons) AIFA Bryony P Marsh BA

Document Title: Geophysical Survey Report Newquay Aerohub – Options 1 & 2 Client: Cotswold Archaeology Stratascan Job No: J3090 & J3180 Survey Date: 12th-21st April 2012 9th-12th October Techniques: Detailed magnetic survey (gradiometry)

National Grid Ref: SW 871 634 Field Team: Tim Lewis BA (Hons)

Thomas DeSalle MSc Alex Pilditch Adam Cooper MSc Alexandra Bellisario Steve Hamflett MSc Tom Richardson MSc Joshua Jones

Project Manager: Simon Haddrell B.Eng (Hons) AMBCS PIFA Report written by: Richard Smalley BA (Hons) AIFA Bryony P Marsh BA CAD illustration by: Richard Smalley BA (Hons) AIFA Simon Haddrell B.Eng (Hons) AMBCS PIFA Bryony P Marsh BA Checked by: David Elks MSc AIFA Stratascan Ltd. Vineyard House Upper Hook Road Upton upon Severn WR8 0SA Tel: 01684 592266 Fax: 01684 594142 Email: [email protected] www.stratascan.co.uk

Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012

© Stratascan Ltd 2012 Page No. 1 Job ref: J30901 & 3180

1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS............................................................................................... 3

2 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Background synopsis.................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Site location................................................................................................................ 3

2.3 Description of site ...................................................................................................... 3

2.4 Geology and soils ....................................................................................................... 4

2.5 Site history and archaeological potential ................................................................... 4

2.6 Survey objectives ....................................................................................................... 4

2.7 Survey methods .......................................................................................................... 4

3 METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Date of fieldwork ....................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Grid locations ............................................................................................................. 5

3.3 Survey equipment....................................................................................................... 5

3.4 Sampling interval, depth of scan, resolution and data capture................................... 6

3.4.1 Sampling interval ............................................................................................... 6

3.4.2 Depth of scan and resolution.............................................................................. 6

3.4.3 Data capture........................................................................................................ 6

3.5 Processing, presentation of results and interpretation................................................ 6

3.5.1 Processing........................................................................................................... 6

3.5.2 Presentation of results and interpretation ........................................................... 7

4 RESULTS........................................................................................................................... 7

5 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 9

APPENDIX A – Basic principles of magnetic survey......................................................... 12

APPENDIX B – Glossary of magnetic anomalies ............................................................... 13



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 1:2000 Site Location and Survey Area Figure 2 1:1000 Colour Plot Showing Extreme Values- West Figure 3 1:1000 Minimally Processed Gradiometer Data- West Figure 4 1:1000 Abstraction and Interpretation of Anomalies- West Figure 5 1:1000 Colour Plot Showing Extreme Values- Central Figure 6 1:1000 Minimally Processed Gradiometer Data- Central Figure 7 1:1000 Abstraction and Interpretation of Anomalies- Central Figure 8 1:1000 Colour Plot Showing Extreme Values- East Figure 9 1:1000 Minimally Processed Gradiometer Data- Central Figure 10 1:1000 Abstraction and Interpretation of Anomalies- Central Figure 11 1:1250 Minimally Processed Gradiometer Data – Whole Site Figure 12 1:2500 Abstraction and Interpretation of Anomalies- Whole Site



1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

A geophysical survey has been carried out across approximately 48ha of agricultural land to the south of Newquay Cornwall Airport. The fieldwork was carried out during two phases in April and October 2012. Part of the area surveyed in April 2012, located to the west of the Newquay Cornwall Airport Access Route, lies outside of the proposed development site. The data has identified a number of circular, curvilinear and rectilinear anomalies likely to represent archaeological activity in the south western limits of the survey area, outside of the proposed development site. A number of linear anomalies evident within the data have been interpreted as former field boundaries; the majority of which are located in the northern and eastern regions of the site. Also evident within the gradiometer data were a large number of generally amorphous and relatively weak positive anomalies. These have been interpreted as cut features of a possible archaeological origin. However, the character of these anomalies means that a natural origin cannot be ruled out. Closely spaced linear anomalies are evident across the majority of the site and are indicative of modern agricultural activity such as ploughing. These anomalies may be obscuring weaker responses of possible archaeological interest.

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background synopsis

Stratascan were commissioned to undertake a geophysical survey of an area outlined for

development as the Newquay Aerohub. This survey forms part of an archaeological investigation being undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology.

2.2 Site location

The site is located near Newquay, Cornwall at OS ref. SW 871 634.

2.3 Description of site

The area surveyed in April 2012, comprises of approximately 32ha of agricultural land south of the Newquay Cornwall Airport. At the time of survey the western half of the site was used for arable and the eastern half was pasture. The southern boundary of the site is formed by the A3059 highway and a strip of woodland acts as the northern limits of the survey area. The recently constructed Newquay Cornwall Airport Southern Access Route bisects the site.



The area surveyed during the October 2012 fieldwork measures approximately 16.8ha, divided across four fields and is located directly to the east of the area surveyed in April. The site is predominantly pasture with some areas of waterlogging present.

2.4 Geology and soils

The underlying geology is mudstone and sandstone (British Geological Survey South Sheet, Fifth Edition Solid, 2007). No drift geology is recorded for the site (British Geological Survey South Sheet, First Edition Quaternary, 1977). The overlying soils are known as Denbigh 2 which are typical brown earths. These consist of well drained fine loamy soils over slate or slate rubble (Soil Survey of England and Wales, Sheet 5 South West England).

2.5 Site history and archaeological potential

Archaeological Surveys conducted a geophysical survey over the area of the Newquay Cornwall Airport Southern Access Route in 2009. Very few features were identified in the survey data and those that were identified were shown to be related to medieval field systems during the consequent watching brief undertaken in 2011 (Shepherd, 2011).

2.6 Survey objectives

The objective of the survey was to detect and precisely locate any potential

archaeological features using non-intrusive survey techniques.

2.7 Survey methods

Detailed magnetic survey (gradiometry) was used as an efficient and effective method

of locating archaeological anomalies. More information regarding this technique is included in the Methodology section below.

3 METHODOLOGY

The survey methodology complies with the brief set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation prepared by Cotswold Archaeology and agreed by the Cornwall County Council Historic Environment Advice Team Leader (Central) (Stoten, 2012).



3.1 Date of fieldwork

April 2012 mobilisation: The fieldwork was carried out over seven days from the 12th April 2012. Weather conditions during the survey were mainly dry.

October 2012 mobilisation: The fieldwork was carried out over four days from the 9th October 2012. Weather conditions during the survey were damp.

3.2 Grid locations

The location of the survey grids has been plotted in Figure 1 together with the referencing information. Grids were set out using a Leica Smart Rover RTK GPS.

An RTK GPS (Real-time Kinematic Global Positioning System) can locate a point on

the ground to a far greater accuracy than a standard GPS unit. A standard GPS suffers from errors created by satellite orbit errors, clock errors and atmospheric interference, resulting in an accuracy of 5m-10m. An RTK system uses a single base station receiver and a number of mobile units. The base station re-broadcasts the phase of the carrier it measured, and the mobile units compare their own phase measurements with those they received from the base station. A SmartNet RTK GPS uses Ordnance Survey’s network of over 100 fixed base stations to give an accuracy of around 0.01m.

3.3 Survey equipment and gradiometer configuration

Although the changes in the magnetic field resulting from differing features in the soil are usually weak, changes as small as 0.2 nanoTeslas (nT) in an overall field strength of 48,000nT, can be accurately detected using an appropriate instrument.

The mapping of the anomaly in a systematic manner will allow an estimate of the type

of material present beneath the surface. Strong magnetic anomalies will be generated by buried iron-based objects or by kilns or hearths. More subtle anomalies such as pits and ditches can be seen if they contain more humic material which is normally rich in magnetic iron oxides when compared with the subsoil.

To illustrate this point, the cutting and subsequent silting or backfilling of a ditch may

result in a larger volume of weakly magnetic material being accumulated in the trench compared to the undisturbed subsoil. A weak magnetic anomaly should therefore appear in plan along the line of the ditch.

The magnetic survey was carried out using a dual sensor Grad601-2 Magnetic

Gradiometer manufactured by Bartington Instruments Ltd. The instrument consists of



two fluxgates very accurately aligned to nullify the effects of the Earth's magnetic field. Readings relate to the difference in localised magnetic anomalies compared with the general magnetic background. The Grad601-2 consists of two high stability fluxgate gradiometers suspended on a single frame. Each gradiometer has a 1m separation between the sensing elements so enhancing the response to weak anomalies.

3.4 Sampling interval, depth of scan, resolution and data capture

3.4.1 Sampling interval

Readings were taken at 0.25m centres along traverses 1m apart. This equates to 3600

sampling points in a full 30m x 30m grid.

3.4.2 Depth of scan and resolution

The Grad 601-2 has a typical depth of penetration of 0.5m to 1.0m, though strongly magnetic objects may be visible at greater depths. The collection of data at 0.25m centres provides an optimum methodology for the task balancing cost and time with resolution.

3.4.3 Data capture

The readings are logged consecutively into the data logger which in turn is daily down-

loaded into a portable computer whilst on site. At the end of each site survey, data is transferred to the office for processing and presentation.

3.5 Processing, presentation of results and interpretation

3.5.1 Processing

Processing is performed using specialist software. This can emphasise various aspects

contained within the data but which are often not easily seen in the raw data. Basic processing of the magnetic data involves 'flattening' the background levels with respect to adjacent traverses and adjacent grids. Once the basic processing has flattened the background it is then possible to carry out further processing which may include low pass filtering to reduce 'noise' in the data and hence emphasise the archaeological or man-made anomalies.

The following schedule shows the basic processing carried out on all processed

gradiometer data used in this report:

1. Destripe (Removes striping effects caused by zero-point discrepancies between different sensors and walking directions)



2. Destagger (Removes zigzag effects caused by inconsistent walking

speeds on sloping, uneven or overgrown terrain)

3.5.2 Presentation of results and interpretation

The presentation of the data for each site involves a print-out of the minimally

processed data both as a greyscale plot (Figures 3, 6 and 9) and a colour plot showing extreme magnetic values (Figures 2, 5 and 8). Magnetic anomalies have been identified and plotted onto the 'Abstraction and Interpretation of Anomalies' drawing for the site (Figures 4, 7, 10 and 11).

4 RESULTS

The difference between probable and possible archaeological origin is a confidence rating. Features identified within the data set that form recognisable archaeological patterns or seem to be related to a deliberate historical act have been interpreted as being of a probable archaeological origin. Features of possible archaeological origin tend to be more amorphous anomalies which may have similar magnetic attributes in terms of strength or polarity but are difficult to classify as being archaeological or natural. The following list of numbered anomalies refers to numerical labels on the interpretation plots (Figures 4, 7, 10 and 11).

For ease of reference the two mobilisations will be discussed separately: Fieldwork carried out in April 2012.

Probable Archaeology 1-48 A number of positive linear and area anomalies has been identified to the south west of the proposed development site. These anomalies have been interpreted as cut features, such pits or ditches, of a probable archaeological origin. A particular cluster of circular and sub-circular ditched features (6-12) is worthy of note with two similar outlying features evident also (4 and 17). A number of rectilinear enclosures (23, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36, 37, 47, 48) have also been identified in this area. Several other linear anomalies can be noted in this area. These features don’t seem to form any discrete enclosures but may still be related to this phase of activity. A large, horseshoe shaped anomaly (24) is evident to the south west of the proposed development site. This feature measures approximately 45m in diameter and its limits seem to respect, and possibly form a continuation of Anomaly 16.



This concentration of anomalies seems to indicate the presence of archaeological settlement activity likely to be of a prehistoric origin. The complex nature of some of these anomalies with features seemingly cutting each other, may suggest that multiphase activity is present to the south west of the proposed development site. 49-77 Several linear anomalies can be noted across the survey area. These anomalies are characteristic of former field boundaries and have been interpreted as such. Many of these features consist of a negative anomaly surrounded by a positive response and are characteristic of Cornish field boundaries. The majority of anomalies related to former field boundaries are located in the northern and eastern regions of the survey area. Possible Archaeology 78-157 A large number of positive linear and area anomalies has been identified throughout the survey area. These anomalies may be related to cut features, such as ditches and pits of a possible archaeological origin. However the amorphous character and relatively weak magnetic value of many of these anomalies may suggest that they are of a natural origin and related to localised changes in geology or pedology. The weaker linear anomalies may be related to ploughed out field boundaries or animal tracks.

158 A number of magnetic ‘spikes’ (strong focussed values with associated antipolar response) indicate ferrous metal objects. Although most of these are likely to be modern detritus, some may be of archaeological interest. Particular attention may be paid to those found in association with other potentially archaeological anomalies.

Other Anomalies

159 Areas of magnetic disturbance are the result of substantial nearby ferrous metal objects such as fences and underground services. These effects can mask weaker archaeological anomalies, but on this site have not affected a significant proportion of the area. 160 Close centred, parallel linear anomalies, likely to have been caused by ploughing activity, dominate the data collected throughout the survey data. The dense frequency of these features can inhibit data quality and also make the interpretation of other geophysical anomalies difficult.

Fieldwork carried out in October 2012. Probable Archaeology 161-168 Several positive linear anomalies have been identified in the second phase of investigation and are indicative of further cut features such as ditches, of probable archaeological origin.



169-182 Further linear anomalies indicative of former field boundaries are noted within this survey area, predominantly in the western fields, with one single response noted in the eastern field.

Possible Archaeology

183-217 Numerous positive linear and area anomalies are again identified within this additional data set and are classified as of possible archaeological origin, relating to former cut features. A single negative linear anomaly has been noted (217) which may be associated with a former bank. 218-222 Several magnetic spikes have been identified in the west of the site and are indicative of ferrous material. These are likely to be associated with modern detritus. Other Anomalies 223 – Several areas of magnetic disturbance have again been identified and are associated with interference from modern field boundaries. 224 – As in the April fieldwork, the data collected across this area is dominated by closely spaced linear anomalies, indicative of modern ploughing activity. These responses can be seen across each of the fields and in the eastern field, multiple phases are evident. These anomalies may be acting as obscuring factors for weaker archaeological responses on the site.

5 CONCLUSION

The detailed magnetic gradiometer survey undertaken over 48ha of land near Newquay, Cornwall is dominated by the presence of close centred parallel linear anomalies related to ploughing activity. These plough lines have had an adverse affect on the survey data making the identification of anomalies in some areas quite problematical. Despite this however, a series of circular, curvilinear and rectilinear anomalies have been identified in the south western region of the April 2012 survey area, outside of the proposed development site. These anomalies are likely to be related to archaeological settlement activity and may be of a prehistoric origin. As the survey data progresses eastwards and northwards the number of anomalies attributed to being of a probable archaeological origin peters out; with the exception of former field boundaries which seem to be more common in the eastern limits of the site. The additional survey data collected during the October 2012 fieldwork has identified several linear responses in the east of the proposed development site which are classified as of probable archaeological origin.



For the most part the survey area contains little in the way of anomalies that can be confidently designated as archaeological with the exception of the settlement activity in the south west, beyond the site, and the former field boundaries.



6 REFERENCES Maps

British Geological Survey South Sheet, 1977. Geological Survey Ten Mile Map, South Sheet First Edition (Quaternary). Institute of Geological Sciences. British Geological Survey, 2007. Geological Survey Ten Mile Map, South Sheet, Fifth Edition (Solid). British Geological Society.

Soil Survey of England and Wales, 1983. Soils of England and Wales, Sheet 5 South West England. Reports Shepherd, F. (2011) Newquay Airport Southern Access Road, Cornwall: Archaeological Watching Brief. Cornwall Council Report No. 2011R082. Stoten, G. (2012) Newquay Aerohub, Newquay Cornwall: Written Scheme of Investigation for a Geophysical Survey. Cotswold Archaeology Project 3788.



APPENDIX A – Basic principles of magnetic survey

Detailed magnetic survey can be used to effectively define areas of past human activity by mapping spatial variation and contrast in the magnetic properties of soil, subsoil and bedrock. Weakly magnetic iron minerals are always present within the soil and areas of enhancement relate to increases in magnetic susceptibility and permanently magnetised thermoremanent material. Magnetic susceptibility relates to the induced magnetism of a material when in the presence of a magnetic field. This magnetism can be considered as effectively permanent as it exists within the Earth’s magnetic field. Magnetic susceptibility can become enhanced due to burning and complex biological or fermentation processes. Thermoremanence is a permanent magnetism acquired by iron minerals that, after heating to a specific temperature known as the Curie Point, are effectively demagnetised followed by re-magnetisation by the Earth’s magnetic field on cooling. Thermoremanent archaeological features can include hearths and kilns and material such as brick and tile may be magnetised through the same process. Silting and deliberate infilling of ditches and pits with magnetically enhanced soil creates a relative contrast against the much lower levels of magnetism within the subsoil into which the feature is cut. Systematic mapping of magnetic anomalies will produce linear and discrete areas of enhancement allowing assessment and characterisation of subsurface features. Material such as subsoil and non-magnetic bedrock used to create former earthworks and walls may be mapped as areas of lower enhancement compared to surrounding soils. Magnetic survey is carried out using a fluxgate gradiometer which is a passive instrument consisting of two sensors mounted vertically either 0.5 or 1m apart. The instrument is carried about 30cm above the ground surface and the top sensor measures the Earth’s magnetic field whilst the lower sensor measures the same field but is also more affected by any localised buried field. The difference between the two sensors will relate to the strength of a magnetic field created by a buried feature, if no field is present the difference will be close to zero as the magnetic field measured by both sensors will be the same. Factors affecting the magnetic survey may include soil type, local geology, previous human activity, disturbance from modern services etc.



APPENDIX B – Glossary of magnetic anomalies Bipolar

A bipolar anomaly is one that is composed of both a positive response and a negative response. It can be made up of any number of positive responses and negative responses. For example a pipeline consisting of alternating positive and negative anomalies is said to be bipolar. See also dipolar which has only one area of each polarity. The interpretation of the anomaly will depend on the magnitude of the magnetic field strength. A weak response may be caused by a clay field drain while a strong response will probably be caused by a metallic service.

Dipolar

This consists of a single positive anomaly with an associated negative response. There should be no separation between the two polarities of response. These responses will be created by a single feature. The interpretation of the anomaly will depend on the magnitude of the magnetic measurements. A very strong anomaly is likely to be caused by a ferrous object.

Positive anomaly with associated negative response See bipolar and dipolar. Positive linear

A linear response which is entirely positive in polarity. These are usually related to in-filled cut features where the fill material is magnetically enhanced compared to the surrounding matrix. They can be caused by ditches of an archaeological origin, but also former field boundaries, ploughing activity and some may even have a natural origin.



Positive linear anomaly with associated negative response

A positive linear anomaly which has a negative anomaly located adjacently. This will be caused by a single feature. In the example shown this is likely to be a single length of wire/cable probably relating to a modern service. Magnetically weaker responses may relate to earthwork style features and field boundaries.

Positive point/area

These are generally spatially small responses, perhaps covering just 3 or 4 reading nodes. They are entirely positive in polarity. Similar to positive linear anomalies they are generally caused by in-filled cut features. These include pits of an archaeological origin, possible tree

bowls or other naturally occurring depressions in the ground. Magnetic debris

Magnetic debris consists of numerous dipolar responses spread over an area. If the amplitude of response is low (+/-3nT) then the origin is likely to represent general ground disturbance with no clear cause, it may be related to something as simple as an area of dug or mixed earth. A stronger anomaly (+/-250nT) is more indicative of a spread of ferrous debris. Moderately strong anomalies may be the result of a spread of thermoremanent material such as bricks or ash.

Magnetic disturbance

Magnetic disturbance is high amplitude and can be composed of either a bipolar anomaly, or a single polarity response. It is essentially associated with magnetic interference from modern ferrous structures such as fencing, vehicles or buildings, and as a result is commonly found around the perimeter of a site near to boundary fences.



Negative linear

A linear response which is entirely negative in polarity. These are generally caused by earthen banks where material with a lower magnetic magnitude relative the background top soil is built up. See also ploughing activity.

Negative point/area Opposite to positive point anomalies these responses may be caused by raised areas or earthen banks. These could be of an archaeological origin or may have a natural origin. Ploughing activity

Ploughing activity can often be visualised by a series of parallel linear anomalies. These can be of either positive polarity or negative polarity depending on site specifics. It can be difficult to distinguish between ancient ploughing and more modern ploughing, clues such as the separation of each linear, straightness, strength of response and cross cutting relationships can be used to aid this, although none of these can be guaranteed to differentiate between different phases of activity.

Polarity Term used to describe the measurement of the magnetic response. An anomaly can have a positive polarity (values above 0nT) and/or a negative polarity (values below 0nT). Strength of response The amplitude of a magnetic response is an important factor in assigning an interpretation to a particular anomaly. For example a positive anomaly covering a 10m2 area may have values up to around 3000nT, in which case it is likely to be caused by modern magnetic interference. However, the same size and shaped anomaly but with values up to only 4nT may have a natural origin. Colour plots are used to show the amplitude of response.



Thermoremanent response A feature which has been subject to heat may result in it acquiring a magnetic field. This can be anything up to approximately +/-100 nT in value. These features include clay fired drains, brick, bonfires, kilns, hearths and even pottery. If the heat application has occurred in situ (e.g. a kiln) then the response is likely to be bipolar compared to if the heated objects have been disturbed and moved relative to each other, in which case they are more likely to take an irregular form and may display a debris style response (e.g. ash). Weak background variations

Weakly magnetic wide scale variations within the data can sometimes be seen within sites. These usually have no specific structure but can often appear curvy and sinuous in form. They are likely to be the result of natural features, such as soil creep, dried up (or seasonal) streams. They can also be caused by changes in the underlying geology or soil type which may contain unpredictable distributions of magnetic minerals, and are usually apparent in several locations across a site.

A

B

C

D

NEWQU

AY C

ORNW

ALL A

IRPO

RT S

OUTH

ERN

ACCESS R

OUTE

STRATASCANTMGEOPHYSICS FOR ARCHAEOLOGY

AND ENGINEERINGVINEYARD HOUSEUPPER HOOK ROADUPTON UPON SEVERN

UKWR8 0SA

T: +44 (0)1684 592266F: +44 (0)1684 594142E: [email protected]

1:3000

Date

Plot

A1

Scale

Drawn by

Checked by

RAJS/BPMFigure No.

Issue No.

01

SubjectProject TitleClient Job No. Survey Date

SW 871 634Site centred on NGR

Survey area

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey's1:25 000 map of 1998 with thepermission of the controller of HerMajesty's Stationary Office.Crown Copyright reserved.Licence No: AL 50125ALicencee:Stratascan Ltd.Vineyard HouseUpper Hook RoadUpton Upon SevernWR8 0SA

OS 100km square = SW

01

SITE LOCATION AND SURVEYAREACOTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY

DGE

OCT 2012

J3180 OCT 12

GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY -NEWQUAY AEROHUB

DateIssue No.

- -

AmendmentsDescription

-

-

- -

© Stratascan Ltd - 2012

OS REFERENCING INFORMATION

D

A

B

C

186817.29 , 063567.80

186817.29 , 063027.80

187387.29 , 063567.80

187387.29 , 063327.80

Survey area - Option 1

Survey area - Option 2

90300m 60 180m120 150

KEY

April 2012 survey grids

October 2012 survey grids

Outline of proposed development site

NEWQU

AY C

ORNW

ALL A

IRPO

RT S

OUT



UKWR8 0SA


1:1000

Date

Plot

A1

Scale

Drawn by

Checked by

RAJSFigure No.

Issue No.

02


01

COLOUR PLOT SHOWINGEXTREME VALUES- WESTCOTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY

DGE

OCT 2012

J3180 OCT 12


DateIssue No.

- -


-

-

- -


Plotting parameters

Maximum +250nT (black)Minimum -250nT (white)

+250nT

-250nT

30100m 20 60m40 50

NEWQU

AY C

ORNW

ALL A

IRPO

RT S

OUT



UKWR8 0SA


1:1000

Date

Plot

A1

Scale

Drawn by

Checked by

RAJSFigure No.

Issue No.

03


01

MINIMALLY PROCESSEDGRADIOMETER DATA- WESTCOTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY

DGE

OCT 2012

J3180 OCT 12


DateIssue No.

- -


-

-

- -


Plotting parameters


-10nT +10nT

+10nT

-10nT

30100m 20 60m40 50

12

17

10 11

8

67

9

4

3

2

1

5

13

16

18

23

19

2122

2526

27

28

30

20

24

29

50

49

1415

32

33

3534

31

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

3748

36

79

78

80

82

92 91

93

90

89

88

87

86

84

83

85

81

94

98

95

96

100101

99

102

103

105104

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

118

117

52

51

54

53

55

56

97

159

159

159 159

NEWQU

AY C

ORNW

ALL A

IRPO

RT S

OUT

160

160

160160

160 160 160

160160

160

160160

160



UKWR8 0SA


1:1000

Date

Plot

A1

Scale

Drawn by

Checked by

RAJSFigure No.

Issue No.

04


01

ABSTRACTION ANDINTERPRETATION OFANOMALIES- WEST

COTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGYDGE

OCT 2012

J3180 OCT 12


DateIssue No.

- -


-

-

- -


Closely spaced parallel linear anomalies - probablyrelated to agricultural activity such as ploughing

Magnetic disturbance associated with nearby metalobject such as service or field boundary

Linear anomaly - probably related to pipe, cable orother modern service

Magnetic spike - probable ferrous object

Linear anomaly - possibly related to land drain

Scattered magnetic debris

Area of amorphous magnetic variation - probablenatural (e.g. geological or pedological) origin

OTHER ANOMALIES

POSSIBLE ARCHAEOLOGY

Positive anomaly / weak positive anomaly - probablecut feature of archaeological origin

PROBABLE ARCHAEOLOGY

Negative anomaly / weak negative anomaly - probablebank or earthwork of archaeological origin

Linear anomalies probably related to former fieldboundaries

KEY

Moderate strength discrete anomaly - probablethermoremanent feature

Moderate strength discrete anomaly - possiblethermoremanent feature

Strong magnetic debris - possible disturbed or madeground

Positive anomaly / weak positive anomaly - possible cutfeature of archaeological origin

Negative anomaly / weak negative anomaly - possiblebank or earthwork of archaeological origin

30100m 20 60m40 50

NEWQU

AY C

ORNW

ALL A

IRPO

RT S

OUTH

ERN

ACCESS R

OUTE



UKWR8 0SA


1:1000

Date

Plot

A1

Scale

Drawn by

Checked by

RAJSFigure No.

Issue No.

05


01

COLOUR PLOT SHOWINGEXTREME VALUES- CENTRALCOTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY

DGE

OCT 2012

J3180 OCT 12


DateIssue No.

- -


-

-

- -


Plotting parameters


-250nT +250nT

+250nT

-250nT

30100m 20 60m40 50

NEWQU

AY C

ORNW

ALL A

IRPO

RT S

OUTH

ERN

ACCESS R

OUTE



UKWR8 0SA


1:1000

Date

Plot

A1

Scale

Drawn by

Checked by

RAJSFigure No.

Issue No.

06


01

MINIMALLY PROCESSEDGRADIOMETER DATA-

CENTRALCOTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY

DGE

OCT 2012

J3180 OCT 12


DateIssue No.

- -


-

-

- -


Plotting parameters


-10nT +10nT

+10nT

-10nT

30100m 20 60m40 50

63

62

61

60

120

59

119

57 58

158

158

158

65

64

66

67

158

138

139

140

141

143

142

150

149148

147

146 145

144

151 152 153

156154

155

157

137

71132

133

131

70

130

134

135

136

69

68

129128

127

126

125

124

122

123

121

7273

74

7576

77

159159

159159

159

159

159

NEWQU

AY C

ORNW

ALL A

IRPO

RT S

OUTH

ERN

ACCESS R

OUTE

160

160

160

160

160

161

162

163

164

165

169

170 171

172

173

174

175

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193194

195

196

200

198197

199

202201

203

218

219

220

221

222

223

223



UKWR8 0SA


1:1000

Date

Plot

A1

Scale

Drawn by

Checked by

RAJSFigure No.

Issue No.

07


01

ABSTRACTION ANDINTERPRETATION OF

ANOMALIES- CENTRALCOTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY

DGE

OCT 2012

J3180 OCT 12


DateIssue No.

- -


-

-

- -









OTHER ANOMALIES






KEY






30100m 20 60m40 50



UKWR8 0SA


1:1000

Date

Plot

A1

Scale

Drawn by

Checked by

RAJSFigure No.

Issue No.

08


01

COLOUR PLOT SHOWINGEXTREME VALUES- CENTRALCOTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY

DGE

OCT 2012

J3180 OCT 12


DateIssue No.

- -


-

-

- -


Plotting parameters


+250nT

-250nT

30100m 20 60m40 50



UKWR8 0SA


1:1000

Date

Plot

A1

Scale

Drawn by

Checked by

RAJSFigure No.

Issue No.

09


01

MINIMALLY PROCESSEDGRADIOMETER DATA- EASTCOTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY

DGE

OCT 2012

J3180 OCT 12


DateIssue No.

- -


-

-

- -


Plotting parameters


-10nT +10nT

+10nT

-10nT

30100m 20 60m40 50

166

167

168

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210 211

212

213

214

217

215

216

223

223

223

223



UKWR8 0SA


1:1000

Date

Plot

A1

Scale

Drawn by

Checked by

RAJSFigure No.

Issue No.

10


01

ABSTRACTION ANDINTERPRETATION OF

ANOMALIES- CENTRALCOTSWOLD ARCHAEOLOGY

DGE

OCT 2012

J3180 OCT 12


DateIssue No.

- -


-

-

- -









OTHER ANOMALIES






KEY






30100m 20 60m40 50

NEWQUAY CORNWALL AIRPORT SOUTHERN ACCESS ROUTE

A1

Plot

PLOT O

F M

INIM

ALLY

PRO

CESSED

GRAD

IOM

ETER

DATA

GEOPH

YSIC

AL SURVEY -

NEWQU

AY A

ERO

HU

B

COTSW

OLD

ARCH

AEO

LOGY

Date

Issue

No.

--

Amendments

Description

--

Checked by

BPM

Issue

No.

Figure

No.

11

Drawn by

DG

EDate

OCT 2

012

Scale

1:2

500

Client

Project

Title

Subject

Survey

Date

Job No.

01

J3180

OCT 1

2

--

© Stratascan Ltd

- 2

012

VIN

EYARD

HOUSE

UPT

ON

UPO

N S

EVERN

WR8 0SA SU

MO

GROUP

MEM

BER

THE

SURV

EYA

SSO

CIA

TIO

N

STR

ATA

SC

AN

TM

GEO

PH

YS

ICS

FO

R A

RC

HA

EO

LO

GY

AN

D E

NG

INEER

ING

T:

01684 5

92266

E: info

@stratascan

.co.uk

www

.stratascan.co.uk

-10nT

Plotting param

eters

Maximum

+10nT (black

)Minimum

-10nT (white)

+10nT

-10nT

+10nT

0m

50

150m

100

12

17

10

11

8

679

4

3

2

1

5

13

16

18

23

19

21

22

25

26

27 28

30

20

24

29

504

9

14

15

32

33

35

34

31

38

39

40 41

42

43

44

45

46

47

37

48

36

79

78

80

82

92

91

93

908

9

88

87

86

84

83

85

81

94

98

95

96

100

101

99

102

103

105

104

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113 114

115

116

118

117

52

51

545

3

55

56

63

62

61

60

120

59

119

57

58

158

158

158

65

64

66

67

158

138

139

140

141

143

142

150

149

1481

47

146

145

144

151

152

153 156

154

155

157

137

71

132

133

131

70

130

134

135

136

69

68

129

128

127

126

125

124

122

123

121 7

273

74

75

76

77

97

159

159 1

59

159

159

1591

59

159

159

159

159

NEWQUAY CORNWALL AIRPORT SOUTHERN ACCESS ROUTE

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

160

161

1621

63

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173174

175

176

177

178

179

180 181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192 193

194

195

196

200

198

197 1

99

202

201

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

217

215

216

218

219

220

221

222

223

223

223

223

223

A1

Plot

ABSTRACTIO

N A

ND

INTERPR

ETATIO

N O

FAN

OM

ALI

ES -

OVERVIEW

GEOPH

YSIC

AL SURVEY -

NEWQU

AY A

ERO

HU

B

COTSW

OLD

ARCH

AEO

LOGY

Date

Issue

No.

--

Amendments

Description

--

Checked by

BPM

Issue

No.

Figure

No.

12

Drawn by

DG

EDate

OCT 2

012

Scale

1:2

500

Client

Project

Title

Subject

Survey

Date

Job No.

01

J3180

OCT 1

2

--

© Stratascan Ltd

- 2

012

VIN

EYARD

HOUSE

UPT

ON

UPO

N S

EVERN

WR8 0SA SU

MO

GROUP

MEM

BER

THE

SURV

EYA

SSO

CIA

TIO

N

STR

ATA

SC

AN

TM

GEO

PH

YS

ICS

FO

R A

RC

HA

EO

LO

GY

AN

D E

NG

INEER

ING

T:

01684 5

92266

E: info

@stratascan

.co.uk

www

.stratascan.co.uk

Closely

spaced

parallel linear anomalies

- probably

related to agricultural activity

such

as ploughing

Magnetic

disturbance

associated

with nearby metal

object

such

as service or field boundary

Linear anomaly

- probably

related

to pipe,

cable

or

other

modern service

Magnetic

spike

- probable

ferrous object

Linear anomaly

- possibly

related

to land drain

Scattered

magnetic

debris

Area of am

orphous magnetic

variation -

probable

natural (e

.g. geological

or pedological

) origin

OTH

ER A

NO

MALI

ES

POSSIB

LE ARCH

AEO

LOGY

Positive

anomaly

/ weak positive

anomaly

- probable

cut feature

of archaeological

origin

PRO

BABLE

ARCH

AEO

LOGY

Negative anomaly

/ weak negative anomaly

- probable

bank or earthwork

of archaeological

origin

KEY

Moderate strength

discrete anomaly

- probable

thermoremanent feature

Moderate strength

discrete anomaly

- possible

thermoremanent feature

Strong m

agnetic

debris

- possible

disturbed

or made

ground

Positive

anomaly

/ weak positive

anomaly

- possible

cut

feature

of archaeological

origin

Negative anomaly

/ weak negative anomaly

- possible

bank or earthwork

of archaeological

origin

0m

50

150m

100

Linear anomalies probably

related

to form

er field

boundaries

Aerohub Business Park ES FINAL - Cornwall Council

Documents

Transcript of Aerohub Business Park ES FINAL - Cornwall Council