An application had been made for a restoration order following the removal of four pews and replacement of some pew platform boards. Although an application had been made for an Archdeacon's Licence for temporary re-ordering, the work had been done before the Licence had been issued, and therefore before the conditions attached to the Licence were known. The pews had received some minor damage during the course of their removal. The Commissary General decided to make a restoration order in respect of the pews (but not the platform boards), but suspend it for an initial period of four months to give the PCC an opportunity of consulting the amenity societies and the Diocesan Advisory Committee and applying for a Faculty to authorise a permanent re-ordering.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the removal of a large yew tree growing close to the south wall of the nave of the church.

The proposals were to replace the pews with upholstered chairs; new floor coverings; a servery; and a disabled access toilet and baby-changing area. Historic England did not favour the complete removal of the Victorian pews and had concerns about the choice of chair. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for the items, providing that the stackable chairs to replace the pews in the north aisle should be Howe 40/4 unupholstered chairs, and the two back nave pews shoud be put into storage.

Major re-ordering was proposed. Objection by the Victorian Society in relation to the physical and spatial impact of the scheme as a whole. Faculty granted.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the removal of a number of short side aisle pews as, in applying the guidelines in Re St. Alkmund Duffield, he found that the petitioners had failed to provide a clear and convincing justification for the removal of the pews. He stated that if the PCC wished to remove the pews they should produce a more comprehensive plan for re-ordering the interior of the church. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the removal of a number of short side aisle pews as, in applying the guidelines in Re St. Alkmund Duffield, he found that the petitioners had failed to provide a clear and convincing justification for the removal of the pews. He stated that if the PCC wished to remove the pews they should produce a more comprehensive plan for re-ordering the interior of the church.

The Associate Rector and Churchwardens petitioned for the removal of the nave and aisle pews. The church has no associated church hall and was seeking to adapt its building for use for both community and church-based activities. Objections were received from two private individuals, and concerns were expressed by the Victorian Society, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Local Planning authority, all of whom suggested alternative proposals involving the retention of some pews. The Deputy Chancellor made it clear that it was not for the objectors to put forward alternative proposals, but for the Chancellor to decide whether a convincing case had been made out for the actual proposals in the petition. Faculty granted.

The petition sought approval for major re-ordering, including the replacement of the pews with chairs. Faculty granted. Applying the principles laid down in Re St. Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158, the Chancellor was satisfied that there was clear and convincing justification for carrying out the proposals.

There was an application for a confirmatory faculty to approve the covering of the north-aisle roof of a Grade I listed church with a non-metallic roofing membrane called Sarnafil, which had been carried out without faculty consent. Although the Diocesan Advisory Committee had been consulted, one of the churchwardens ordered the work to be done (with the approval of the Parochial Church Council) without faculty. Instead of directing that the unauthorised work be undone, the Chancellor granted a faculty with the proviso that the Sarnafil roofing should be inspected and maintained regularly and that, when it needed to be replaced, the church should apply for permission for a replacement form of roofing, "which should be decided by myself or my successor, and there should be no presumption that because Sarnafil is already there, then Sarnafil should be used in the future." The Chancellor directed that the churchwarden should personally pay the costs of the proceedings.

A telecoms company wished to erect wifi transmission equipment on the tower of the church, to facilitate broadband reception in the area and to provide photographic security protection for the church roof. The transmission equipment and receivers were small in size. A number of people objected that the effects of the radiation emitted from the transmission equipment would be deleterious to their and others’ health. The Chancellor, after hearing evidence from two experts, who stated that there was no evidence of health problems related to the type of equipment proposed, granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to construct a timber-framed, self-contained chapel, in the north aisle of the church, which could be heated economically, the replacement of the failed Victorian heating system being too costly. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the benefits would outweigh the harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the Grade I listed church. Also, the structure would not alter the fabric into which it was inserted and could be easily removed in the future.