The petitioners proposed the removal from the church of the existing pipe organ and its replacement with a combination organ, reusing the case and pipes from the existing organ with added digital elements. It was accepted by all interested parties that the existing organ produced a poor sound and that repair was not practicable. However, the Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Church Buildings Council did not favour a hydrid organ. Nevertheless, the Chancellor determined that in the particular circumstances of this case, a faculty should be granted for the proposed combination organ.

The parish wished to carry out extensive internal reordering works to the church. The main item of contention was the removal of the 19th century stained deal pews (in order to afford greater flexibility to worship and community activities) and their replacement with 200 Howe 40/4 chairs The amenity societies had several reservations about the proposed works. The Victorian Society proposed the retention of a block of five pews either side of the central aisle. The Chancellor decided that a mixture of modern chairs and 19th century pews would look incongrous and not serve the ambitions of the church to engage more with the community: " ... in seeking to serve two masters, present needs and past aesthetics, there is the risk that it properly serves neither.  I am satisfied that the parish’s genuine wish is to be able to offer a resource to the community that it cannot presently offer." He therefore granted a faculty which authorised, inter alia, the replacement of all the pews with chairs.

The Chancellor granted a confirmatory faculty for the replacement of a modern octagonal entrance vestibule to the church by extending the front entrance and providing information panels about the Loseley Chapel; incorporating the former outside gravel area and south wall of the Chapel into an internal, informal meeting space; expanding the current kitchen area and the installation of underfloor heating throughout the new entrance and reception areas, together with reglazing and the renewal of the heating and ventilation system.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for a memorial to be placed inside the church in memory of Dick Reid. The requirement of exceptionality was satisfied as the deceased had been an internationally renowned sculptor and letter carver.

The petitioner wished to exhume from the churchyard the ashes of her father, who had died in 1991, and to reinter the ashes in Crowle Cemetery, where the ashes of the petitioner’s recently departed mother were to be interred. In 1991, Crowle Cemetery did not have an area set aside for cremated remains, but now there was such an area, and the family wished to ensure that the petitioner’s parents were buried together. The Chancellor was satisfied that exceptional reasons existed in this case for an exhumation to be permitted.

The Chancellor refused to allow a design of the Masonic square and compasses to be added to a memorial to the Petitioner's late husband, who had been a Freemason for forty years, latterly holding high office in Freemasonry.

During the parish priest's absence, whilst attending a course, a burial took place in the closed churchyard. Prior to his absence, the priest had told the funeral director and the family that a burial could not take place, unless in accordance with one of the exceptions in the Order in Council closing the churchyard for burials, namely: (1) where a grave had been reserved by faculty; (2) where a person could be buried in the same grave as a relative. (Also, cremated remains can be buried in a closed churchyard.) The funeral director arranged for the deceased to be buried next to the deceased's brother in a tight space between two graves. The Chancellor determined that the interment was unlawful, and could not be made lawful retrospectively by the Ministry of Justice or the court, but he decided that no action should be taken to disturb the burial or to refer the matter for police investigation.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the reservation of a double grave, as there were very few empty grave spaces left in the churchyard.

The churchwardens and incumbent (Petitioners) petitioned for a faculty to remove brick edging and loose stones next to a grave (Decoration). Mr Watt, the deceased’s father, opposed the petition, stating that the Decorations had remained since 2022 and numerous other graves similarly contravened the Regulations. The Chancellor held that introducing the Decorations was a trespass (as Mr Watt acknowledged authorisation was required), and their removal required a faculty (Re St Mary the Virgin, Burghfield). The Consistory Court should bear in mind the impact of a decision on all relevant parties (Re The Churchyard of Quarrington Hill). The Court considered that leaving matters unresolved is unfair to those complying and risks creating precedent. Accordingly, a faculty was granted for the removal of the Decorations by 2 February 2026 by either Mr Watt or the Petitioners, who will store the Decorations for two months for Mr Watt’s retrieval, and if not claimed, will be deemed abandoned. 

The petitioners wished to replace the existing 1980s upholstered chairs in the Grade II listed church with 150 new upholstered chairs, which were lighter in weight and would stack more easily. The Victorian Society objected to the proposal, citing the Church of England guidance that un-upholstered wooden chairs were more appropriate for historic church interiors. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty: the current chairs were difficult to move and were untidy, and the new chairs would not harm the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest.