The cremated remains of a wife and her husband had been interred in the same plot in 1971 and 2003 respectively, and there was an upright memorial was placed over the plot. In 2004 a single story extension to the church had been built, and the memorial stone was within inches of the extension. On two occasions since 2004, thieves had used the memorial as a stepping stone to gain access to the church roof and steal the lead. On the second occasion, the memorial had fallen over. The deceased's daughter wished to have her parents' remains and memorial moved to another part of the churchyard. The Chancellor determined that the need to reduce the risk of further lead theft and of damage to the roofs of the church (i.e., public benefit) justified the movement of the remains and the memorial: "This is wholly different from those cases where exhumation is sought for private purposes".

In August 2013 there were two instances of the theft of lead from the roof of the south aisle of the church and a further attempt to steal the remaining lead. The removal of the lead caused rain damage to the organ. On 16th August 2013, at the request of the Parochial Church Council, the Chancellor authorised the removal of the remaining lead from the roof and its replacement by a substantial temporary covering. The Parochial Church Council chose to cover the roof with Dryseal GRP. The Petitioners sought a Faculty to authorise the retention of the GRP covering on a permanent basis, rather than replace the stolen lead with lead or terne-coated stainless steel. The Diocesan Advisory Committee, English Heritage and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings all considered that GRP was not appropriate as a permanent solution and favoured terne-coated steel. One of the PCC's arguments against steel (or indeed lead) was that, if the covering were again stolen, the insurers would limit a claim (including consequential damage) to £5,000 (or £10,000 if an alarm was fitted). The Chancellor decided that the insurance considerations should not be determinative of what was appropriate for the building. He decided that the GRP could remain for ten years, but must then be replaced by terne-coated steel or 'an equivalent metallic material'.

The petition contained two proposals. The first was for the installation of an 'Eco Loo', for which the Chancellor granted a faculty. But he declined to grant a faculty for the removal of a number of pews from the Grade II* church, in order to create an area for functions other than services. The amenity societies objected to the removal of the pews and the Chancellor was of the opinion that no adequate justification for the proposals had been made.

The Faculty petition proposed a major reordering of a Grade II* church. The Victorian Society was a party opponent. The Chancellor approved the proposals generally, concluding that the benefits would outweigh any harm to the church. However, he was not prepared to approve the proposed red upholstered chairs. He therefore gave a stay of proceedings for 28 days, to allow for the petitioners to consider the judgment and put forward an alternative proposal for the chairs, which the Chancellor might find acceptable.

The faculty petition proposed a major reordering of the 13th century church, including removal of most of the pews and installation of a kitchen, which would support a proposed 'cafe hub'. The rationale for the proposals was to stem the decline of attendance at the church and encourage further church and community use, rather than risk closure. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the changes and granted a faculty for all but one item in the proposals.

The application was for a memorial to those who had died in the Second World War. This memorial would be placed beneath the existing memorial to those who had died in the First World War. For the reasons set out in the judgment, the Chancellor was not satisfied with the details of the proposals and he adjourned the matter, requesting that revised proposals should be submitted.

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.