The petitioner applied for approval of a memorial in memory of her late husband. The proposed memorial was to be 6 feet wide and 4 feet 6 inches high on a 7 feet wide base, so that it would cover not only the head of the grave of the deceased, but also the head of the adjacent grave reserved for the petitioner. The headstone would take the form of two large interlocking heart shapes, each of which would be flanked by two smaller heart shapes. The stone would bear gold lettering and images of a horse's head and a riverbank scene, to reflect the life of the deceased, a leading member of the local traveller community. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the memorial as proposed, because its size was considerably larger than the churchyards regulations would normally allow, and it would dominate the area of the churchyard where it would be erected. He permitted a smaller memorial in the style requested, provided that it did not exceed 4 feet 4 inches in height and 4 feet in width.

The Parochial Church Council sought a faculty for the installation of a frameless glass door into the porch opening. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not support the proposal: the door would look too modern; a wooden or metal frame would be preferable. Historic England, the Victorian Society and the Ancient Monuments Society also objected. The Chancellor concluded that a frameless glass door would have an adverse aesthetic effect on the Grade I listed church. He according declined to approve a frameless glass door, but approved a wood-framed or metal-framed glass door of a design acceptable to the Diocesan Advisory Committee.

Refusal by the Deputy Chancellor to permit the tuning of eighteenth-century bells from the Rudhall foundry in Gloucester, on the basis that no sufficient case had been made. Chancellor: "Because it is irreversible, tuning of a complete old ring is a serious matter, not merely to be accepted ‘on the nod’ where a complete old ring is concerned. Where a good case is made, there may need to be a balance struck between the asserted needs of the present and the desirability of preserving the past.  But where no case is made at all, there can be no reason to destroy the heritage."

A faculty for the restoration of the church's five bells and the addition of a sanctus bell had been granted in 2014. Subsequently, a person referred to in the judgment as 'the Churchwarden' had arranged for a sixth bell to be installed without the authority of a faculty, having advised the bell founder that the sixth bell had been authorised. After the installation became known to the Registry, an application was made for a Faculty to amend the 2014 faculty to provide for the extra bell. Apart from the work having been done without faculty, the Deputy Chancellor found that a minute of the PCC produced by the Churchwarden and agreeing to the installation was 'unreliable'. The Chancellor also determined that the Vicar should take some blame for allowing the installation without faculty authorisation. The Chancellor therefore ordered the costs to be paid as to two-thirds by the Churchwarden and one-third by the Vicar.

There was a proposal to install a ringing floor and stairs in the church tower. The reason for the application was that the choir and ringers had to share the same space in the tower before services for robing and ringing. The Chancellor was satisfied that the project would result in distinct advantages and accordingly granted a faculty.

The petitioner applied for a confirmatory faculty for a replacement memorial on her parents' grave. The new memorial included the additional words, 'Honey I missed you', being a line from a song which the petitioner's father used to sing at his wife's grave. The Deputy Chancellor granting a faculty, taking the view that the inscription was "neither offensive nor incompatible with the Christian faith. No disrespect for that faith, the Church, or the churchyard as a place of rest and solace for many was intended. Rather, the inscription was chosen by the applicant as a fitting memorial to her parents."

The petitioners sought a faculty for extensive reordering at the Grade II listed church, including removal of choir stalls and pews, glazing of the west doors, handrails, relocation of the sound desk, levelling of the chancel with ramped access, carpeting, and a movable pulpit. The DAC supported the scheme; the Victorian Society maintained objections. Applying the Duffield questions, the Chancellor granted faculties for the glazed doors, handrails, sound desk, removal of the platform and communion rail, levelling of the chancel, and ramped access. He also permitted removal of five rear pews, subject to prior approval of replacement flooring. He refused faculties for removal of the choir stalls and relocation of the pulpit, finding inadequate evidence of their significance or justification for change. He held that removal of existing carpets would be unlikely to harm significance but found the petitioners had not given due regard to the CBC’s Historic Floors Guidance when proposing new and extended carpeting. He allowed resubmission of revised flooring proposals within six months, failing which that part of the petition would stand dismissed."

The petition proposed various items as the second phase of a reordering project. The main items were: the creation of a servery built on to the north wall at the west end of the church; removal of seven rows of pews at the west end of the church; and removal of two rows of pews at the front of the nave to allow an extension to the existing dais. The Victorian Society and Historic England had reservations about the works, but the Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made an adequate case for the proposed works: " ... I find that the petitioners have proved to me to the necessary degree that the moderate harm that will be caused to the significance of this church as a building of special architectural or historic interest is justified by the need demonstrated."

In July 2013 the Chancellor granted of a faculty authorising works in respect of the stonework, stained glass, and wall paintings at the church. The Church Buildings Council had advised against the proposed work to the stained glass without a detailed conservation report. The faculty granted in July 2013 was subject to a condition that no work should be carried out to the stained glass unless and until a report was first prepared and approved by the Chancellor. A report had now been produced, in which the options given were to replace the broken pieces of glass with similar modern glass, or to insert strapping to support the original damaged glass. The Chancellor decided that the former option was appropriate. The window concerned was one of four matching windows, and new pieces of glass would retain an appearance similar to the other windows, whereas strapping would detract from the appearance of the window, especially as it was part of a set.

The Petitioners sought a faculty for repairs to the stone work,together with repairs to the stained glass and works of conservation in relation to the wall paintings. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the proposals and the Victorian Society had no objection. The Church Buildings Council advised against the proposed work to the stained glass without a detailed conservation report. The Chancellor granted a faculty subject to a condition that no work should be carried out to the stained glass (in a window damaged by missiles from outside) unless and until a report was first prepared and approved by the Chancellor.