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.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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 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
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
date 28 September 2012
approved by Gail Stoten, Principal Heritage Consultant
signed
date 28 September 2012
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.
Newquay Airport Business Park, Cornwall: Heritage Desk-Based Assessment
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.
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
Newquay Airport Business Park, Cornwall: Heritage Desk-Based Assessment
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.
Newquay Airport Business Park, Cornwall: Heritage Desk-Based Assessment
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
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
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
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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.
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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).
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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)
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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.
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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.
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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.
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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.
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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.
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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.
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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.
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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.
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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.
Geophysical Survey Newquay Aerohub Cotswold Archaeology October 2012
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
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