The Rector and churchwardens of this Grade II listed, New Town church (mostly rebuilt in 1866-7 by J. W. Hugall in the Early English style) applied for a faculty for the installation of wall-mounted television screens on either side of the chancel arch. The local planning authority, as statutory consultee, supported the proposal. The DAC did not recommend the proposal for approval by the court because (1) the proposals were felt to cause harm to the appearance of the listed church building, which was not outweighed by the purported benefits of the scheme; and (2) the applicants had not undertaken a professional options appraisal to properly investigate alternative options for audiovisual provision which might reduce the harm to the appearance of the building. Historic Buildings and Places (with the support of the Victorian Society) supported the DAC in pressing for a comprehensive exploration of all kinder options than the proposed solid television screens, and wished to press for retractable, rather than solid, screens.  No-one elected to become a party opponent,1189 so the faculty application was formally unopposed. The Chancellor held that any harm to the significance of the church was outweighed by the benefits of TV screens, which were more suitable in the context of this particular church than a retractable projector screen. He granted a faculty for a trial period of five years in the first instance.

The petition contained two proposals: (1) upgrading of the heating system, including demolishing a disused chimney stack; and (2) replacement of the pews with chairs. The rear portion of pews had been replaced with chairs in 2007. It was proposed that the heavier existing chairs would be brought to the front of the nave and any new stackable seating (the type proposed being the 'Alpha' chair) would be deployed behind. The Chancellor determined that the pews were not of major historic significance and that the needs of the worshipping congregation would be better served by modern, flexible seating, that would also allow wider use of the building by other groups and organisations. He therefore granted a faculty.

The petition proposed extensive reordering works, both inside and outside the church, in order to adapt the church for use as a multi-purpose building with a dedicated worship space, an outdoor activity and play area and a Youth Hub extension. The Victorian Society, whilst not wishing to be a party to the proceedings, objected to the length of the proposed extension and its wood cladding. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the missional advantages of the proposed works outweighed the harm alleged.

In October 2020, it was noticed that a grave containing the remains of a local couple had been disturbed, suggesting an additional interment without lawful authority, namely, the interment of the ashes of the couple's son, who had taken his own life two years earlier following the breakdown of his marriage. The incumbent applied for exhumation of the cremated remains, as they had been unlawfully interred, and the deceased’s four siblings applied for custody of the remains, so that they could be interred in land where the deceased had wished his remains to be interred. The deceased’s widow denied that her husband's ashes had been interred in the grave, and refused to attend the hearing. On the basis of the evidence at the hearing, the Chancellor was satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the ashes interred were those of the deceased sibling and she granted a faculty for exhumation and for custody of the ashes to pass to the surviving siblings for reinterment.

The petition proposed an extensive re-ordering of the church, including an extension to the north side of the church, to house WCs and a room for boilers; glazed doors for the porch; a new floor with underfloor heating; replacement of pews with chairs; re-siting of the rood screen and font; replacing the organ; new lighting; and creating a new kitchen with meeting room over it. The acting Deputy Chancellor approved the proposals, except for outer glazed doors to the porch (whilst allowing inner glazed doors), the creation of a meeting room above the new kitchen, and the introduction of steel framed chairs with wooden seats and backs, but indicating that he would approve all-wood stacking chairs.

The petitioner wished to install a memorial on her mother's grave. The memorial did not conform to the churchyards regulations, being in the shape of a large heart with two smaller hearts as flower containers. Also, the petitioner wished to have her mother's maiden name on the memorial, rather than her married name. Given the number of heart-shaped memorials close to the grave, the Deputy Chancellor decided to permit the large heart-shaped stone, and also the small heart-shaped flower holders, provided that they were fixed to the plinth. As to the inscription, although the deceased had not consistently used her maiden name after being divorced, she had expressed a wish for her maiden name to appear on her memorial. The Deputy Chancellor considered that there was no objection to the deceased's maiden name being used, as it was the name known by those whom the deceased knew well, but he recommended that, to avoid confusion, both the married name and maiden name should be entered in the Burial Register and on the churchyard plan.

Petition for installation of secondary glazing in a Grade II church building no longer used as a church, but as a community hall. Re St. Alkmund Duffield considered. Faculty granted.

In 2008, a faculty had been granted for the demolition of a building in the churchyard and the construction of an extension to the church, which had necessitated the exhumation of 154 sets of skeletal remains (the ‘Fewston Assemblage’) which were removed from the graveyard during excavations for the erection of the Washburn Heritage Centre. A new petition was presented in 2016, seeking authority to reinter the skeletal remains in the churchyard and the erection of three memorials to record the reinterments. Whilst noting that the petitioners in 2008 should have applied for a Ministry of Justice licence, as the remains had not immediately been reinterred in consecrated ground, the Chancellor granted a faculty for the reinterment of the Fewston Assemblage and the erection of the three proposed memorials.

The proposed reordering works for the Grade I church included: removal of chancel furniture and some pews (to be replaced with stackable chairs); installation of glazed lobby; kitchenette and WC facilities; and removal of the pulpit. The Chancellor did not find sufficient justification for the removal of the pulpit, but granted a faculty for the remaining items, being satisfied that any harm to the church was justified by the benefits the scheme would bring.

Mr. Stephen Hinks petitioned on behalf of Mrs. Mary Maxwell-Irving, for permission to hang in the church a heraldic hatchment in memory of her late husband, Dr. Alistair M. T. Maxwell-Irving. The church, a Grade II* listed 12th-century building, already contained many memorials. The Parochial Church Council (PCC) unanimously supported the proposal, though the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC), by a majority, did not recommend approval, considering a hatchment anachronistic and questioning Dr. Maxwell-Irving’s connection with the parish. The Chancellor reviewed the law on memorials, especially Re St. Margaret Eartham (1981), Re St. Mary Longstock (2006), Re St. Mary Magdalene Adlestrop (2017), and Re Holy Trinity Bledlow (2020), concluding that hatchments occupy a “hybrid” category akin to heraldic banners, so the test of exceptionality applies. He found the Maxwell-Irving family’s historic contributions to the church, together with Dr. Maxwell-Irving’s scholarly and public service record, satisfied that test. The hatchment would complement existing heraldic windows and cause no harm to the church’s significance. Rejecting arguments of anachronism, he held continuity with tradition a virtue and directed that the faculty be granted.