The site is located to the east of the existing depot on Newark Road, Ollerton, Nottinghamshire. It is bounded by Newark Road on its western boundary, and by woodland on the south-western, south-eastern and northern boundaries. Prior to the trial trenching, a geophysical survey was carried out at the site. The survey identified several possible archaeological features. The archaeological trial trench evaluation comprised the excavation of 54 trenches across two fields, separated by a stream centrally. Of the 54 trenches, 28 were located in the field to the west of the stream, with the remaining 26 in the field to the east. A total of 43 of the trenches contained no archaeological features. The most significant archaeological feature found within the site was a boundary ditch, which was present in three trenches. In each of these trenches, a layer of buried topsoil concealed the ditch. This buried soil likely originated from the construction of the railway embankments surrounding the site, where soil was placed above turf as a levelling layer, burying the original topsoil. The ditch closely aligned with the anomaly recorded by geophysical survey. The ditch contained a single sherd of Roman pottery, which was abraded and likely residual, suggesting it was not contemporary with the infilling of the ditch and may have been redeposited from an unknown Roman period settlement in the area. This is supported by the otherwise complete absence of Roman features or finds within the rest of the site. The boundary ditch was used to separate agricultural land parcels and can been seen in existence as a field boundary from the 1821 Map of the township of Boughton through subsequent mapping of the area up until the Provisional Ordnance Survey 1: 10,000 map of 1955. The results demonstrated that most of the geophysical anomalies identified did line up with features, although these features, with the exception of the boundary ditch, tended to be of low archaeological significance and were often natural in origin. The other features in the field to the north of the stream appeared to be mostly natural, such as the large pits in two trenches, and the small tree throw in one trench. In another trench, two furrows were excavated, which correspond well with the available geophysical data. To the south of the stream, the geophysical interpretation shows a linear feature running broadly north to south at the eastern side of the site. This feature should have been visible in three trenches, as one of the trenches was extended west to investigate the potential feature. The slot excavated through the feature in another one of the three trenches suggests that it was a ditch which was re-purposed as a land drain or dug for the specific purpose of housing a land drain. Either way, the ditch was not visible in trench extended west, despite the extension. In the last trench, a feature was recorded where the ditch was predicted to be, but was much smaller in size, and did not resemble the feature excavated in the second trench. Instead, the feature in the last trench seems to be a furrow, similar to another furrow seen towards the west of the trench. Therefore, it is conceivable that the boundary recorded by geophysical survey represents a combination of two separate features with a common alignment. The pond in a further trench may have formed naturally, as a natural depression in the ground which could have filled by collecting surface run off travelling down towards the stream. The single fill contained a high amount of humic material, likely stemming from rotten vegetation. The geophysical survey also identified several parallel linear features aligned from north-west to south-east in four trenches. Of these potential features, only the feature in one trench was identified during the evaluation, and this appeared to be the remnants of a palaeochannel, running into the stream and following the natural undulation of the ground. A similar feature was excavated in a second trench, and it is possible that the other features identified through geophysical survey were similar in nature and represented broader variation in the natural deposits. It is possible that these features referenced the position of evenly spaced plough furrows when the series of agricultural trends recorded by geophysical survey to the north-east, the position of the former boundaries and the feature exposed in the second trench are considered together.