The petitioners sought permission for the replacement of the slate covered nave roof with one of terne coated stainless-steel.  The excessively shallow pitch of the roof had led to severe water ingress and rotting timbers, a problem which was being exacerbated by decaying and vegetation covered flashings. The Chancellor considered the works were well planned and urgently needed and that they would preserve the building as a place of historical and architectural interest and as a focal hub for its congregation and community. She therefore directed that a faculty be issued.

The Parochial Church Council wished to install solar panels on the roofs of the south nave and the south aisle of the Grade II* listed church. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that views of the proposed panels would be extremely restricted due to the shallow slopes of the roofs behind a parapet and also tree cover. The Chancellor stated that the Church of England’s target of ‘net zero’ carbon emissions by 2030 and the Anglican Communion’s Five Marks of Mission, which included ‘to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth’ were factors to be taken into consideration in determining the petition. He commended the parish for "their vision and commitment to the goal of ‘net zero’".

Five yew trees, a conifer and a holly had been felled without the authority of a faculty. There had been an application for a faculty using the Online Faculty System. The petitioner (a churchwarden) had taken the approval of the Diocesan Advisory Committee to mean that a faculty would be granted. By the time the Chancellor visited the churchyard to inspect the trees, the trees had been removed. The Chancellor granted a confirmatory faculty, subject to a condition that
new native trees should be planted in the churchyard.

The Parochial Church Council wished to replace the stolen lead flashings from the church roof with Ubiflex, a material made up of reinforced aluminium mesh and a mixture of non-metallic materials. The church had a history of four lead thefts, and in 2011 the local authority had given planning permission to allow the roof to be recovered with stainless steel, though the lead flashings had been left. The PCC was financially unable to afford to replace the lead flashings with lead or steel. As a temporary expedient to preserve the fabric of the church, the Chancellor agreed to the use of Ubiflex, but required the PCC within 4 years to submit to the Registry a report on fund-raising to provide for a much longer lasting solution.

The Parochial Church Council had engaged a “decorative stone & plaster conservator” to carry out restoration work to the painting of the Royal Coat of Arms over the chancel arch of the church, without consulting the Diocesan Advisory Committee or obtaining a faculty. They subsequently realised that they should have obtained a faculty and made an application. The Chancellor, "with some hesitation", granted a confirmatory faculty. 

A baby had died two days old in 2014, and a memorial with kerbs and chippings had been erected on his grave without the authority of a faculty or even the approval of a priest. The memorial was of black polished stone and kerbs, and the inscription on the stone included the words 'OUR LITTLE PRINCE' and 'MUMMY AND DADDY LOVE YOU XXX', whilst the words ''FLY HIGH OUR BABY JJ' were inscribed on the kerb at the foot of the grave.  The proposed inscription in respect of the petitioner's father included 'OUR KING' and 'DAD AND GRANDAD/ALL THE WORLD FOR EVER AND A DAY/XXX'. Prior to installation of the memorial, the petitioner had been told by a churchwarden (during an interregnum) that there were no restrictions on the type of memorial she could have. In 2022 the child's mother petitioned for retrospective permission for the memorial and for a further inscription to be added in respect of her father. The Deputy Chancellor was unhappy about many of the features of the memorial, which were outside the churchyards regulations, but in the exceptional circumstances of the family having been badly misled so many years ago, he granted a faculty.

Two matters were before the Chancellor: (1) an application for a confirmatory faculty in respect of a sound system installed without faculty in 1997; (2) an application by the Archdeacon for a restoration order in respect of lighting installed in the west porch in 2015 without faculty. The Chancellor's decisions were as follows: (1) faculty to be granted for the sound system, subject to conditions, including the replacement of the old sound speakers with new speakers in different locations; (2) a decision on the application for a restoration order in respect of the lighting to be deferred for 36 days, to allow time for a faculty petition to be presented.

The Team Vicar and Churchwardens sought a faculty for a new screen dividing the north aisle from the rest of the church and for the extension and refurbishment of the kitchen in the north aisle of the Grade II* listed church. The church’s interior was extensively reordered in 1979 by the notable architects Maguire and Murray, whose distinctive screen enclosed the north aisle. Following a reorientation of the seating to eastward facing, the screen no longer served its intended liturgical purpose and was viewed as visually discordant. The Chancellor considered representations from the Twentieth Century Society, which urged retention of the original screen due to its architectural significance. Applying the Duffield framework, the Chancellor found that the proposals would cause only modest harm to the building’s significance, outweighed by clear benefits to worship, mission, and community use. The kitchen improvements were uncontroversial, and the new screen was deemed more harmonious. The works, funded by two legacies, were approved. A faculty was granted subject to DAC agreement on kitchen layout details, with completion required within twelve months.

The petitioners wished to install 48 solar panels on the south-facing nave roof of the church, to help to reduce heating costs and also reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Diocesan Advisory Committee decided not to recommend the proposals. English Heritage and the Victorian Society objected, but were not parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had proved a necessity and accordingly he granted a faculty.

Several items of reordering were proposed, including new toilet and kitchen facilities, removal of some pews, relocation of the font, construction of a narthex screen, a glazed internal entrance with a pair of frameless glass doors and refurbishment of the porch entrance. Notwithstanding concerns raised by the Georgian Society regarding some of the pews to be removed and the proposed relocation of the font, the Chancellor granted a faculty for all the works, being satisfied that the petitioners had demonstrated a clear justification for the proposed works in terms of the church’s worship, mission, and community outreach.