Whilst acknowledging the success of a recent major internal reordering of the church, Historic England were unhappy about proposals to install new audio-visual equipment, namely, screens in the aisles, fixed to the pillars, and replacement loudspeakers. The Chancellor was satisfied with the need for the equipment, and agreed to the proposals, subject to conditions that: (1) the screens would have a white or no border, so that they would blend with the white background; (2) the screens would be no wider than the pillars; (3) the Diocesan Advisory Committee should approve the fixings and (4) the loudspeakers should be four steerable beam loudspeakers at high level.

The faculty petition proposed the installation of a new font bowl and also a new stained glass window, which would replace a clear glass window near the font. There were two letters of objection in respect of the window. Applying the principles laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2012] (Court of Arches), the Chancellor was satisfied that any harm to the building would be minimal and that the design was appropriate, and he therefore granted a faculty.

The petitioners sought a faculty to permit the replacement of the heating system in the Grade I listed church and the removal of the Victorian nave pews and their replacement with chairs. One parishioner and the Victorian Society objected, but neither wished to be a party opponent. The Chancellor decided that the public benefit resulting from the proposals outweighed the harm which would be caused and that therefore a faculty should issue.

The petition proposed the grant of an easement for limited purposes over a church-owned (unconsecrated) lane for the benefit of an adjoining property belonging to the Great Durnford Estate and used for the storage of garden machinery. The owner of another property fronting the lane objected. The Chancellor was satisfied that the terms of the proposed easement were fair and appropriate, and she granted a faculty.

A Faculty had been granted by the Archdeacon for repairs to the pink sandstone of the church tower using a local stone, as recommended by the architect. The architect had subsequently recommended a similar, Scottish stone, which would be cheaper. A director of the local quarry objected to the Scottish stone being used, on the grounds that the local stone was likely to be more suitable. The Chancellor determined that the Faculty should be amended to provide that the PCC might use either stone, subject to the condition that the PCC should consider (a) the advice from the Diocesan Advisory Committee that the Scottish stone might weather differently from the other stone on the building (b) the offer by the local quarry to match the price of Scottish stone and (c) the architect’s assessment as to whether the local stone would be acceptable for use at Great Ness.

The petitioner wished to erect a memorial to her late husband. The proposal was for a honed dark grey granite stone with, in the top quarter, a photograph of her husband standing on a beach, holding a surfboard, and the the inscription to be picked out in white. A churchwarden made a formal objection. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not support the application. The Chancellor refused permission for the design as proposed, but said that he would agree to an etching of a surfboard only, and that he would approve the use of a stone lighter than the dark shade of granite proposed. A revised design would have to be approved by the Chancellor before a faculty issued.

The Chancellor agreed to the design of a memorial stone including an etching of two sailboards against a background of the sea, but refused to permit a black stone. Reversing an early decision, he allowed the use of South African grey or Rustenburg grey stone.

The petitioners' daughter had died in 1980 and her ashes had been buried in the churchyard at Ham. The Petitioners had subsequently made their permanent home in Tasmania, but they had purchased the right to be buried in due time in a plot in Kingston General Cemetery. The petitioners wished, on the occasion of the first of them to die, to have their ashes interred in the reserved grave in the cemetery and to have their daughter's ashes exhumed from the churchyard and interred in the same grave. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The cremated remains of the petitioner's son, a former Royal Marine, had been interred in an area of the churchyard set aside by faculty for the interment of cremated remains. The faculty stated that any interment may be marked by "a ledger stone or vase block". The churchyards regulations provide that "any burial without a headstone may have a horizontal stone ledger 9 inches (or 225mm) square, set flush with the turf." The petitioner wishes to have a headstone, measuring 20" wide by 12" high and 2" deep, on a base plinth, with a horizontal stone ledger measuring 3 feet by 2 feet. Very extensive inscriptions were proposed.The Chancellor was not prepared to grant a faculty, but indicated that he might be prepared to authorise a compromise proposal, in accordance with further advice from the Diocesan Advisory Committee.

After considering the judgments of the Chancellor of the Diocese of Durham in [2018] ECC Dur 2, [2021] Dur 2, and  [2021] Dur 3, the Auditor of the Chancery Court of York refused permission to appeal against the Chancellor's decision that a ledger stone bearing an enamelled photograph should be removed from an area of the churchyard set aside for cremated remains.