The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise a major scheme of reordering, which included the removal of pews and their replacement with hardwood chairs and benches; moving the font and the organ; replacing the altar against the east wall and installing a free-standing altar at the west end of the chancel; and removing the rood screen. Notwithstanding the objections of ChurchCare, Historic England, and the Victorian and Twentieth Century Societies, the Chancellor was "satisfied that the reordering is part of an overall holistic scheme for a thriving church community, which will be a major public benefit outweighing any harm."

A re-ordering project included the removal of all of the nave pews and their replacement with chairs; the installation of a new kitchenette and chair store at the west end of the building; the relocation of the font; and replacement of the dangerous wooden pew platforms with a simple engineered timber floor. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty: "... the circumstances and needs of the parish relied upon at present do not justify the changes sought because those needs can be met with a less harmful scheme."

The petition proposed significant internal reordering of the Grade II* listed church. The proposals included extending the kitchen, creating a breakout room, improving disabled access, and refurbishing the entrance and toilets to enable wider community use. Heritage bodies — Historic England, the Victorian Society, and the Church Buildings Council — supported the project in principle but raised concerns about enclosing the church’s distinctive Italianate columns, removing internal doors, and relocating the historic font. Applying the Duffield framework, the Chancellor found that the works would cause moderate harm to the building’s historic character but that the missional and community benefits outweighed this. The faculty was granted, subject to conditions: retention of the timber doors, careful relocation of the font under expert supervision, DAC approval of methods, confirmation of adequate funding before commencement, and completion within 12 months. The judgment emphasised balancing heritage protection with the church’s role in serving a deprived community.

The Vicar and Churchwardens applied for permission for  the creation of a disabled access toilet, a relocated and expanded kitchenette area and the removal of some pews at the front and back of the main nave pew block to enable greater freedom of movement and flexibility of use, which would also help wheelchair users, who would not then have to use the central aisle. There were three objectors who did not become parties opponent. Their principal objections related to the proximity of the toilet to the new kitchenette and insufficient privacy for those using the toilet. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposals and granted a faculty.

The proposal was to remove 26 pews and 3 pew fronts; relocate the mounts for the churchwardens' staves; and move an existing monitor to a new position in the gallery. An archdeacon's temporary reordering licence had already been granted, whereby the pews have been stored and 70 stackable chairs already owned by the church had been used in the nave. The Chancellor was satisfied that the pews should be replaced with chairs. She also agreed to the relocation of mounts for the churchwardens' staves to the pillars either side of the entrance to the church and the installation of the monitor on a retractable bracket on the north side wall of the gallery.

The petitioners wished to carry out works in the churchyard, comprising the creation of an area for cremated remains; creation of a garden for social and recreational use; and the reconfiguration and resurfacing of the parking area. There was an objection in respect of the parking area. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to conditions regarding memorials, human remains and the recording of the works.

Grant of a Faculty for the creation of a new, dedicated area for the burial of cremated remains (“ABCR”), but upon strict conditions.  The church is a Grade II listed building located in a conservation area. The management of the churchyard had proved problematic.  Whilst provision of an ABCR was uncontroversial, the current proposals were not recommended by DAC because of the proposed plot size being excessively large and the proposed use of headstone was inconsistent with the Churchyard Regulations.  The plot size was directed to be reduced and the only memorial at the point of interment permitted would be a plaque installed flush to the surface of the ground (notwithstanding retrospective permission for larger memorials having been retrospectively permitted previously).

A decision on two petitions. One was for the construction of a church centre on part a 1965 addition to the churchyard (which had been consecrated) and the other for permission to grant a lease of the Church Centre site to a charitable company with a view to the construction and operation of the church centre. Faculty granted. Consideration of the law applicable to building in a churchyard in use

Reordering proposals included: remove toilet, replace with servery and construct mezzanine with staircase and screen facing the nave; replace pews and pew platforms with 'Theo' chairs; new stone floor; repositioning of the font; electrical heating, lighting and audio-visual works; internal redecoration; and relocation of the chancel screen. The greatest concerns of the amenity societies related the mezzanine and stairs. The Chancellor was satisfied that the works were appropriate and granted a faculty subject to conditions.

The petitioner wished to erect in the churchyard a memorial to her two children, who had died, aged 6 and 9, from Batten disease. When the first child had died, a memorial which was outside the churchyards regulations had been installed without permission. Following the death of the second child, the petitioner sought approval of a new memorial design, with an image of Winnie-the-Pooh at the top and the inscription including phrases from other children's literature - “To infinity and beyond” and “We love you to the moon and back”.  The Chancellor granted a faculty. He considered that the petitioner had made out a compelling case and that there were exceptional pastoral reasons for approving the design, to give comfort and solace to the petitioner and her family.