The geophysical (gradiometer) survey was undertaken in accordance with current best practice and CIfA guidance; and follows the guidance outlined in Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation (English Heritage 2008b); Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Geophysical Survey (CIfA 2014b); EAC Guidelines for the use of geophysics in Archaeology: Questions to Ask and Points to Consider (Europae Archaeologiae Consilium/European Archaeological Council 2016). The survey identified two groups of anomalies across the field: possible pits (Group 1) and possible pits /or tree-throws (Group 2), alongside anomalies associated with metallic debris and ground disturbance. The degree of preservation of the identified features appears to be poor, all of the anomaly responses being weak, with some barely discernible from the background geology. This suggests that many of the identified features only survive to a shallow depth, their intermittent nature suggesting only partial survival. However, it is possible that additional, even more ephemeral features, are masked by the background geology and modern disturbances. The results of the geophysical survey would suggest that the archaeological potential for the site is low, though it sits within a landscape of high potential. It is thought that the identified features relate to post-medieval extractive processes, though the presence of prehistoric activity in the immediate vicinity and surrounding landscape means that a prehistoric or Romano-British date cannot be ruled out.