The first positive trench (Trench 2) was one of a cluster of trenches investigating an area of high archaeological potential near the south side of the western evaluation area. Two very shallow parallel ditches, speculatively dated to the Roman period, were exposed. Both ditches ran close together on an east-to-west line across the centre of the trench. They survived only as bases cut into the bedded solid geology, neither more than 0.10m deep; despite this level of truncation, a sherd of Roman grey ware was retrieved from the fill of one ditch. Both features seem likely to be elements of the Roman ditch network exposed in excavation Area 1.

A second positive evaluation trench (Trench 3) was one of a cluster of trenches investigating an area of high archaeological potential near the south side of the western evaluation area. It was oriented north to south, and was located to the north-west of the first positive trench (Trench 2); however, the two ditches seen in first trench appear to terminate in the space between the trenches or to pass outside the south end of this trench, as they did not appear within it. A linear feature of possible mid-Roman date, an undated pit and an amorphous feature were exposed. The ditch ran at a very oblique angle, north-north-east to south-south-west, across the north end of the trench. It was more substantial than either of the previous two ditches mentioned above, at 1.54m wide and 0.36m deep – probably because it was cut into a deeper deposit of drift geology rather than encountering bedrock at the base – with a stepped south-east side that may have indicated that it had been cleaned out or recut 10 sherds of pottery with a possible 2nd century AD date were retrieved from the excavated section of the ditch. It is possible that this ditch formed part of the Roman ditch network exposed in excavation Area 1.

A further evaluation trench (Trench 4) was one of a cluster of trenches investigating an area of high archaeological potential near the south side of the western evaluation area. It was aligned west-north-west to east-south-east, and lay approximately 13m to the north of Trench 3. Three intercutting linear features of possible Roman date were exposed. One ditch, running approximately north-to-south across the centre of the trench and appearing to be slightly curvilinear, seems likely to be the same feature as the ditch running down the length of Trench 3: the excavated section was of similar width with a similar step in the south-east side, and also had a base on the bedrock, which was deeper here, 0.30m below the machined surface. No finds were retrieved from the excavated section, but the ditch is considered to be datable by its probable connection with ditch. A gully intersected the ditch at right-angles from the east side, while a curvilinear ditch intersected it from the west at approximately the opposite point. However, it seems unlikely that the gully and curvilinear ditch were elements of the same feature, as they had no similarities: the gully had a straight east-to-west alignment and was narrow and very shallow, while the curvilinear ditch was sinuous, wider than the gully and considerably deeper; moreover, the gully had a sandy silt fill and the curvilinear a silty clay fill. Neither ditch produced finds. The relationships of the three features are ambiguous: no sections were dug at the junctions, suggesting that the stratigraphic relationship was clear on site, and the trench plan indicates that the linear ditch cut both smaller ditches; however, if the gully and curvilinear were indeed separate features, then it is implausible that they both terminated independently, within the line on which ditch would later be dug. The photographs of the intersection show no distinction between the features, and the site recording notes that the fills of the linear and curvilinear ditches were alike. It seems plausible that all three ditches were elements of the Roman ditch network exposed in excavation Area 1, and that the ditches, at least, were contemporary; the variation in fills between gully and linear ditch may be explicable if both of the smaller ditches were drains or boundaries leading into the linear ditch, and the gully went out of use during the working lifespan of the ditch system, so that later recuts of the linear ditch cut through the fill of the disused gully.

Another evaluation trench (Trench 8) was located near the south side of the western evaluation area, sampling an area devoid of geophysical responses between two areas expected to be of archaeological interest. It was aligned approximately north to south, and intersected portions of two parallel ditches of probable mid-Roman date, running through it at a very oblique angle. The two ditches appeared to be aligned north-north-east to south-south-west, although the angle at which the trench intersected them was so oblique that very little of their outer edges could be seen. Their projected courses lay roughly 4m apart, suggesting that they might have flanked a droveway or a broad trackway. Both ditches were approximately the same width, at 1.00m and 1.05m, but were of markedly different depths, with one being much the shallower at 0.18m while the other was 0.38m deep; the uneven base of the deeper ditch suggested that it might have been recut. The excavated sections both had silty sand fills with pebble inclusions, with the fill in the deeper ditch being darker in colour; 11 sherds of late 2nd to 3rd-century pottery were retrieved from fill of the shallower ditch, suggesting that this pair of ditches was associated with the Roman ditch complex in Area 1.

R. D. Savage, L. Brocklehurst & S. Palmer-Brown, 2021, Phases 3 and 3B, Fairham Pastures, West of Nottingham Road, Clifton, Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire: Scheme of Archaeological Mitigation (Evaluation and Targeted Excavation) Combined Report (Unpublished document). SNT6051.