Small church isolated on the edge of the hamlet. Church consists of a stone west tower with a pyramidal roof probably done by C. H. Fowler during restoration of 1903-4. Nave and choir, reconstructed in brick in 1770, of a single, rectangular cell. There is a Romanesque pillar piscina in the sanctuary and a bowl from another pillar piscina reset into the SW corner of the nave.

According to Domesday Book, Countess Judith, niece of William I, held possession of the church to which a priest was assigned in 1086. Around 1300 the belfry had to be rebuilt because it had fallen into such a state of disrepair through neglect of maintenance on the part of the parishioners.

The fact that the back side of the pillar piscina in the sanctuary is not carved suggests that it was never meant to be freestanding. The same holds for the reset piscina capital in the SW corner of the nave. According to Pevsner, the nave was rebuilt in 1770 by Cox; this provides a terminus post quem for the date of the resetting of this piscina fragment. Pevsner records this as a 'Norman capital' but its basin and drainage holes demonstrate that it is a capital from a pillar piscina. Of the three holes in the piscina capital, the centre one was probably for a dowel to connect the capital to a pillar. The other two, based on their angle toward the uncarved side of the capital were likely meant to be drainage holes. But why are there two drainage holes? Was there a difficulty with one hole that necessitated an attempt at another? Also, why the roughly carved basin? Perhaps this piece was left unfinished because of a design error in the drain system. If indeed this is an 'unfinished' capital for a pillar piscina, then why is this fragment here? Is it possible that it represents on-site carving at this small parish church?