The petitioner's mother had died in 1991 and the family had had no choice but to follow the then policy of the PCC to have cremated remains interred close together in a double row with memorial tablets touching adjacent ones. Some years later the PCC changed its policy in an area where cremation plots were wider and interments were marked by upright stones. The petitioner's father did not like the area where his wife had been interred as the area looked paved, which he thought unseemly. He had arranged before he died in 2017 for his own remains to be interred in the new area. The petitioner wished to have his mother's cremated remains moved to his father's grave. The Chancellor decided that the combination of three circumstances - the family's unhappiness about the interment in 1991, the change in policy of the PCC, and the creation of a family grave by placing the wife's remains with those of her husband - justified him in granting a faculty.

A faculty had been granted for the re-roofing of the chancel of the Grade II* church, subject to a condition that such of the existing tiles as were in good condition should be re-used, with the addition of new tiles matching the existing ones in colour, shape, size, and texture. The petitioners now sought an amendment of the faculty to allow for only new tiles to be used. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not agree to the removal of the condition, saying that a wholesale replacement of the tiles would involve a significant loss of historic fabric in circumstances where this was not necessary. The Chancellor refused to remove the condition.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for a single storey extension to the 14th century Grade II* church to house a lavatory, a vestry for the clergy and choir and storage for robes; the provision of a kitchenette at the base of the west tower; the repositioning of a screen; and the re-siting of a memorial stone.

Faculty granted for WC and buffet bar in the north-west corner of the church, even though the work would result in a restricted view of a stained glass window.

The petitioner wished to erect in the churchyard a memorial to her parents, who were part of the Travelling Community. The proposed memorial was to be polished blue pearl granite, with a cover slab with rounded steps and built-in vases. The design included gilded lettering, a carved angel draped over the upright stone, three-dimensional carved climbing roses and inlaid photographs. The original design put forward was, however, amended: the three-dimensional climbing roses were replaced with discreet climbing roses lower down on the headstone; the stone specification was changed to honed light grey granite; the shape of the upright stone was amended; the urns and photographs were omitted; and the angel design was simplified. The Chancellor decided that the amended specification should be approved: “I consider that an appropriate balance has been struck in this case between allowing expression of cultural traditions and beliefs of the Travelling Community and taking into consideration the needs of the settled community.”

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.