The Chancellor granted a faculty for a major reordering of the church, with the exception of a proposal to cover the whole of the floor with carpet, because he considered that, if the church was carpeted, "the change in the present character and nature of the church would be too great ".
(Note: This judgment also deals with a separate petition which included a proposal for carpeting, and is therefore separately listed as Re St. John the Divine Southbourne [1985] Quentin Edwards Ch. (Chichester).)

The petitioner wished to have her late husband buried in the grave of his first wife, which also contained the cremated remains of his first wife’s mother. In order for the burial to take place, it would be necessary for the cremated remains of the first wife’s mother to be temporarily exhumed and then returned to the same grave after the interment of the body of the petitioner’s husband. The Area Dean did not support the petition. He believed that exhumation would be contrary to the theological presumption of the permanence of Christian burial. The Chancellor, however, considered that there was case law which supported an exception to the normal presumption of permanence in these circumstances and he granted a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the exhumation of the mortal remains of the baby son of one of the petitioners and reinterment in Ireland. The baby had lived less than three months. The family had lived in Ireland for 20 years and had a double grave plot reserved in their local churchyard, which could accommodate six burials. The father was suffering from terminal cancer and wished to be buried with his child in the family plot. For this and other reasons, the Chancellor found that there were exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty.

In 2017, the then Archdeacon of Bath had granted a licence for temporary reordering which allowed the removal of the church pews into storage, the removal of five radiators and the laying of a temporary carpet. The pews were placed in a storage facility with pews removed from Bath Abbey. The licence was limited to a period of 18 months. For various reasons, including a vacancy in the benefice and the Covid pandemic, nothing had been done about the return of the pews. In the interim, Bath Abbey arranged for the disposal of its pews from the storage facility, and by mistake the pews from St. Michael’s church were included in the disposal. The petitioners now requested a confirmatory faculty for the permanent removal of the pews. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the permanent removal of the pews, but not for their disposal, which remained unlawful. A condition was attached to the faulty that the petitioners should use their best endeavours to try to recover a sample number of the missing pews.

The petitioners wished to remove three light, moveable, twentieth century pews from the Grade II* church, together with 20 chapel chairs, and replace them with up to 25 new chairs of a light-coloured wood with burgundy red upholstery on the seats and backs. Historic England cautioned against the use of upholstered replacement chairs due to their likely impact on the church’s interior, which is predominantly furnished in timber. The Victorian Society and the Georgian Society also objected to upholstered chairs. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the removal of the three pews and the chapel chairs and the introduction of up to 25 new wooden chairs, provided (inter alia) that: the the new wooden chairs should be stained to match the surrounding woodwork; only the seats should be upholstered; and the colour of the upholstery should be a neutral colour to blend in with the colour of the wood.

The Vicar and Churchwardens wished to replace the existing gas boiler and radiators in the church with a ChurchEcoMiser system (involving the installation of 23 new electric radiators). The petition was unopposed, though the Diocesan Advisory Committee thought that an air source heat pump would be a preferred option. The Chancellor did not consider it appropriate to require the petitioners to investigate the option of an air source heat pump. He was satisfied that the petitioners had done enough to justify their proposed choice of heating system and he granted a faculty.

Mr. Gordon Mills died in 1983 and was buried in the churchyard at Welcombe. A memorial had been erected over his grave, leaving room for a further inscription. Some years before, his marriage had broken down, and following separation from his wife had lived with Mrs. Margaret Walker. Following Mrs. Walker's death in 2000, one of Mr. Mills's daughters and a granddaughter applied for permission to add the following inscription to the memorial: "Also his beloved Margaret (Walker) much loved Mum and Nan 31-12-1915 - 24-2-2000". Four of Mr. Mills's children objected to the inscription. The Chancellor decided that "Mum and Nan" might be misleading, as Mrs. Walker was not the natural mother and grandmother to all Mr. Mills's children and grandchildren. He also thought "loved" and "beloved" was repetitious. He therefore granted a faculty authorising: "Also his beloved companion Margaret Walker 31st December 1915 - 24th February 2000".

The PCC wished to replace lead stolen from the church porch roof with plain tiles. The DAC objected and felt that terne-coated stainless steel was preferable, as the porch had always had a metal roof. English Heritage were agreeable to either steel or tiles. After consideration of the decision in St Alkmund Duffield, the Chancellor determined that it would not be appropriate to put tiles on a roof which had historically had a metal roof covering, but terne-coated stainless steel would be an acceptable alternative to lead: " ... if the proposal for plain tiles was granted then this would result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest.  I am also satisfied that the level of harm done would far outweigh any benefit that could be obtained from the use of tiles over the use of [terne-coated steel]".

A widow and her daughters applied for permission to exhume the body of the widow’s late husband from the grave which had been reserved for him and his wife and to reinter it in another grave in the same churchyard. The reason given for the petition was that at about the same time as the burial of the widow’s husband another person had been buried in an immediately adjoining grave and it was alleged that that person had financially abused and exploited one of the daughters of the widow, which caused great distress to the family, whenever they visited the grave of the widow’s husband. The Commissary General granted a faculty: "While this may not amount to a serious psychiatric or psychological problem in the medical sense, I nonetheless give weight to the impact of the status quo on the wellbeing of [the] family."

Faculty Petition for various works to a redundant chapel vested in the Churches Conservation Trust and the adjoining chapelyard, including improved access within the chapelyard and into the chapel, various rainwater and foul water drainage improvements, the creation of a rubbish and recycling area, and the removal of the modern metal security gates from the entrance to the south porch and their replacement with the Victorian gates which previously hung there. There was one objector, whose objection was in respect of the replacement of the porch gates. Finding by the Chancellor that the gates, being part of the redundant chapel, were not within the Faculty Jurisdiction (though the chapelyard still was). Faculty granted for all the works.