The priest in charge, a churchwarden and the Chairman of the Tutbury War Memorials Preservation Committee petitioned for a faculty to place two metal wreath holders near to the war memorial in the churchyard. Historic England and the Parish Council objected, the former becoming a party opponent. Historic England felt that the proposed structures were not of sufficient aesthetic merit for the churchyard of the Grade I listed church. The Chancellor, however, was satisfied that what was proposed was of an appropriate quality, and accordingly he granted a faculty.

The proposal was to install telecommunications antennae in the Grade I church and to enter into an agreement with the telecommunications contractor. Two parishioners objected, on the grounds that people could suffer from harmful radiation, but they did not wish to become parties opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty. Referring to the Court of Arches judgment in Re Emmanuel Church, Bentley [2006] 1 Fam 39, he pointed out that, where the Government set the permitted levels of radiation as a prerequisite of planning consent, it would be wrong for the consistory courts to apply lower guidelines.

The original gas boiler of the 1950s unlisted church had failed, been condemned as unsafe and removed. The Parochial Church Council wished to install a new heating system with new pipework and radiators and using a new gas boiler. The Church of England had a policy that its buildings should achieve net carbon neutrality by 2030. The Diocese of Southwark had a target of 2035. These policies suggested that churches should replace old gas heating systems with 'green' alternatives. However, in the present case the Chancellor decided that it would be unreasonable not to allow the present proposal and he therefore granted a faculty.

The proposal was to repair a 19th century stained glass window in the north wall of the nave and install a window guard. The Church Buildings Council raised an issue about two figurative panels in the window, which they thought might be pre-Victorian. The Chancellor was satisfied from the evidence that all the glass in the window was Victorian, and he granted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to have a cross and a Star of David on a memorial to her late husband, who had been brought up in the Jewish Jew, but who had later adopted the Christian faith. The Chancellor considered two previous decisions of consistory courts in other dioceses: in the one case, where permission was given on the grounds of exceptional circumstances, and the other, where permission was not given because the Chancellor decided that there were no exceptional circumstances. The Chancellor in the present case decided to grant a faculty. He considered that the cross and the Star of David recognised the Jewish tradition and subsequent Christian faith of the deceased and also, when the petitioner was in due time interred in the same grave, the two symbols would represent their separate religions. However, the Chancellor made it clear that a Star of David should only be permitted for good and sufficient reasons and should always be the subject of a faculty application.

The petition proposed several items of reordering. The Victorian Society became a party opponent, objecting to one specific item, namely, the treatment of the Victorian plain black and red tiling in the nave of the Grade II* church. The Chancellor was satisfied as to the suitability of the remaining items, and this judgment is mainly directed at the one contentious item. The petitioners contended that the Victorian tiles needed to be removed to allow the replacement of all the flooring in the nave, in conjunction with the proposed new underfloor heating, in order to achieve a sufficient heat output. The Chancellor granted a faculty for all items in the petition, except in respect of the stone floor finish. He directed that as many of the original tiles as possible should be salvaged and re-laid with as many suitable reproduction tiles as may be required.

Faculty granted for votive candle stand. Judgment contains a discussion as to the legality of the use of votive candles in church.

The proposed reordering works included removal of some pews; alterations to the low wall between nave and chancel; creation of storage units in the Berkeley Chapel; raised platform in front of the choir and new nave altar; display cabinets near font; servery; toilets; glazing of tower arch and a new screen wall in front of the tower. The main object was to provide a more welcoming and useful space, especially for large gatherings. There were several objectors to the proposals, but no parties opponent. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for all the works.

The Archdeacon of Dorking applied for a restoration order in respect of a vault, covered by a marble slab, constructed in the churchyard by the previous incumbent as a place of interment for himself and his mother. The grounds for the application were that the place in question was subject to a closing order rendering future burials unlawful, that the construction of the vault was in contravention of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 and that the placing of the memorial was performed without the sanction of a faculty. The Archdeacon therefore sought an order for the removal of the vault. The respondent claimed that he had acquired rights of burial from the successors of the person to whom rights were originally granted by faculty in 1915, and that those rigths were unaffected by the closing order. The Chancellor determined that the respondent did not lawfully have the rights originally granted and that the marble slab shold be removed and the vault filled in with earth, rather than have the vault dismantled.

Several items of reordering were proposed, in order to make the space in the church more flexible for church and community groups and events. Objections were received as to the reordering generally and also as to lack of detail in some of the proposals. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for the removal of the pews and their replacement with unupholstered chairs to be approved by the Diocesan Advisory Committee; a toilet; a kitchen; insulation of the roof; upgrading of doors; and tower repairs. He refused to grant a faculty for secondary glazing and a replacement heating system, owing to lack of detailed information provided by the petitioners.