The geophysical survey was carried out in the 6 hectare eastern field and a sample area (60m x 60m) of the western field of the two fields making up the parcel of land included in the Proposed Development Area. The PDA is bounded by the shooting range in the south-west, woodland in the north, the A1 road in the east and agricultural land on all other sides. The instrument chosen for this survey was a Bartington Grad 601 dual sensor fluxgate gradiometer. The 30m by 30m survey grids were located to cover the PDA. In total 82 survey grids (including partial grids) were set out and accurately positioned using a Leica Zeno 10 GNSS field controller with GS05 antenna cap which was connected to Leica Smartnet to receive corrections resulting in an accuracy of typically 0.6m or better. Each grid was then surveyed at 1m traverse intervals with the sampling at 0.25m (4 readings per metre) intervals. The survey was carried out in 'zigzag’ mode with each alternate traverse walked in opposite directions. The range of the instrument was set at 100nT (0.01nT resolution). The geophysical survey has revealed a large, and possibly regionally significant, rectilinear enclosure with probable surviving truncated internal features in the south-east of the eastern field. The survey has also revealed the remains of a probable post-medieval field boundary and possibly the remains of a much earlier field system although the results suggest that, if this is the case, much of it has been destroyed by later agricultural activity. The majority of the remaining anomalies of possible archaeological interest were recorded in the southern half of the eastern field but are of less certain origin. Of particular interest may be a possible double-ditched track way, another possible track-way or holloway and an interesting curvilinear arrangement of anomalies, but it is possible that the anomalies have a non-archaeological origin such as geological or topographical features or fairly ordinary agricultural remnants. The northern part of the eastern field appears to be largely devoid of anomalies of archaeological interest, but this may be due to the presence of alluvial deposits which could have a masking effect on the data. The western field was not included in the geophysical survey except for a small sample area that revealed the presence of predominantly agricultural remains and two very weak linear anomalies that are impossible to interpret but could be tested by field evaluation.