Production of a Desk Based Assessment. The fieldwork comprised the hand-excavation of four test pits (Contexts 1-4). The pits were carefully excavated by Pinnacle Conservation Limited in controlled, shallow layers until the foundations were fully exposed. Thereafter, LS Archaeology cleaned and recorded the deposits within the pit. On-site discussions regarding deposit functions were held between all representatives: LS Archaeology, York Diocese, Donald Insall Associates and Pinnacle Conservation Limited. The church retains its original Norman nave and chancel arch, although the chancel itself has been significantly altered over time. The original, more substantial Norman chancel was removed in the 19th century and replaced by a Georgian structure constructed in 1839. This Georgian chancel was later demolished and replaced in 1963 with a shorter, modern version. In 1891-1893, plans were drawn up to replace the existing chancel with one more in keeping with the original Norman proportions; however, this work was never carried out. Given that only fifty years had passed since the installation of the Georgian chancel, it is possible that structural issues affecting the chancel arch had already begun to emerge by that time. These problems may have prompted the proposed reconstruction, intended in part to stabilise ongoing damage. The current condition of the Norman chancel arch, which is reported to be shifting, may be linked to the cumulative impact of these structural changes. It is likely that the removal of the original longer Norman chancel disrupted the intended structural balance of the building. Norman ecclesiastical architecture was typically constructed as an integrated whole, with mass and symmetry contributing to the stability of key architectural elements, such as the chancel arch. The original chancel may have provided some buttressing or stabilising effect at the east end of the nave. Its removal and replacement with shorter and lighter structures could have altered the distribution of structural loads, particularly if the newer chancels were built with differing foundation types or materials less suited to bearing heavy lateral thrust. Further, the site's proximity to a floodplain introduces the possibility of groundwater fluctuation and soil movement over time. Seasonal saturation, flooding, or variable drainage may have affected ground stability, especially where later chancels were constructed with more shallow or less robust foundations. Although environmental factors may not be the primary cause of movement in the chancel arch, they may act as a contributing factor, particularly when combined with the architectural changes described above. Taken together, the loss of the original chancel's structural contribution, successive replacements with lighter and shorter elements, and the church's hydrogeological setting could reasonably account for movement in the chancel arch observed in recent times. Test pit monitoring at the Church of All Saints, Aughton, identified foundations from both the 12th- and 16th-century construction phases. The earlier medieval footings, of substantial limestone blocks over cobbled bases, supported the chancel, nave, and west tower, with evidence in Test Pit 3 for their reuse in the 16th-century tower. In Test Pit 4, later 16th-century foundations were recorded that incorporated a compacted stone bedding layer to enhance drainage and load distribution. A brick buttress of probable Tudor date was also identified adjacent to the south elevation close to the current 19th-century one. Modern interventions, including a 20th-century drainage apron and surface water service features, were present across most test pits.
Signorelli et al. (Wed,) studied this question.