The churchwardens and fabric officer of the church petitioned for a confirmatory faculty in relation to works of refurbishment to the area for cremated remains in the churchyard, which was surrounded by stone flags. Over a period prior to the summer of 2015 there had been complaints about the untidiness of the area and nine further interments of ashes had taken place outside the area, which had become full. The PCC, without a faculty, extended the area from 32 plots to 106 plots, replaced the turf with gravel, and constructed a low wall surmounted with stone around the enlarged plot. Following the discovery of the works by the Archdeacon, an application was made for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor was very concerned about the works, both from an aesthetic point of view and more importantly because of potential future maintenance issues. She granted a faculty for a limited period of 10 years, after which the situation should be reviewed.

A faculty was granted for the following works at the Grade I listed church: the creation of an extension to the north side of the church to provide for an accessible lavatory, a kitchen area and a vestry/office; the re-creation of the Knight's chapel (of late used as a vestry); and the creation of an historic display area within the south aisle.

Although the churchyards regulations did not normally permit memorial kerbs, the Chancellor granted a faculty to permit kerbs to be added to a memorial in the churchyard, there being a large number of well-tended memorials with kerbs in the area.

The petitioner was 18 when her brother committed suicide in 1988. At that time the Roman Catholic Church, of which the family were members, would not perform the burial, and so the deceased was buried in the churchyard of the Anglican church in Cherry Hinton. The petitioner was so aggrieved, emotionally and psychologically, by her brother's death that she had never been able to visit his grave, though her mother had visited it. Following her mother's death, the petitioner did not wish her mother to be buried in Cherry Hinton, but wished to have her buried in a cemetery in a triple-depth grave where the exhumed remains of her brother could be reinterred by a Roman Catholic priest, who was willing to perform the reinterment, and where the petitioner could be buried in due course. For the reasons stated in his judgment, the Chancellor was satisfied that there were special circumstances which constituted a good and proper reason for making an exception to the norm that Christian burial is final, and he therefore granted a faculty

The petitioner wished to place a 'desk type' ledger stone in the churchyard. The Rector had indicted that she would object, as the type of stone was not covered by the churchyards regulations, which require ledger stones to be laid flush with the ground. However, the incumbent had recently approved such a stone, and there were other examples of the type of stone in the same area of the churchyard. Following the departure of the rector, one of the churchwardens objected to the stone. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty on the basis that (a) there was nothing offensive about the desk-style ledger stones which populate the particular area of the churchyard; (b) there were already several examples of the type of stone in that area; and (c) he was concerned that the church should be seen to be acting consistently towards applicants

The proposal was to remove the pews in the chancel (including children's pews) and nave, which were introduced in a 1902 re-ordering, and replace them with chairs, and to move eastward the historic pews (relegated in 1902 to the rear of the nave), in order to create spaces for flexible use in the chancel and at the west end of the nave. There were ten letters of objection. Also, Historic England, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Victorian Society objected to the removal of the chancel pews and the Victorian Society recommended that samples of the 1902 pews should be retained. The Chancellor decided that the Petitioners had established a need for change, if the church was to fulfil its role as a centre for worship and mission and to be of service to the local community, and that the need outweighed the harm to the historical significance of the church.

A proposed extensive reordering was proposed. The works included: removal of pews, new chairs, a "welcome counter", a WC, a prayer chapel, a glass screen, a kitchen, removal of a pipe organ, new heating, lighting, and a parking area. The Chancellor was satisfied that there was a need for the works and granted a faculty.

The body of a woman was buried in the grave of her brother. The brother's widow and son were not consulted by the woman's sons or the funeral director or the parish priest. Upon discovering what had happened, the son applied for a faculty for exhumation, as he felt that he and his mother should have been consulted and he would have objected to the interment in his father's grave, had he known about it. The Chancellor took the view that the woman's sons had kept quiet about the existence of the son and widow, in order to have their mother buried in an existing grave in Cubley, where she did not have a legal right to be buried. However, the Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for exhumation. Although it was regrettable that the petitioner and his mother had not been consulted, the petitioner had "not established any basis sufficient in law based on any property right analogous to a reservation, or otherwise, to support his petition for exhumation".

The proposals were for a major reordering of the Grade II* church, which would cost over £500,000. There were seven parties opponent. The proposed works included the replacement of the nave pews with oak chairs; replacement of the Victorian tiles in the nave with sandstone flooring; the replacement of the existing vestry and boiler room with a new extension to house a parish room, toilet and kitchen; the provision of a servery; and other items to which there were no objections. Notwithstanding the objections, the Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the harm to the building would be modest, that the justification for the works was strong, and that the public benefit would outweigh any harm caused to the building.

The proposed works for the Grade II church included the replacement of the nave pews with oak chairs; the creation of a kitchen and Community Cafe; the installation of a disabled toilet; the creation of storage facilities; and new porch doors. Upon consideration of the guidelines laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2012], the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty: " ...this seems to me to be a clear case where significant public benefit (including benefit to the listed building considered as such) outweighs modest harm so that I give a positive answer to the fifth of the Duffield questions."