The petition proposed various landscaping works in the churchyard, relating to the addition of a churchyard extension. There was a single objection to the removal of a line of fir trees. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for all the proposed works.

The petitioners wished to replace three family memorials, which were unstable and/or eroded. The Parochial Church Council objected to the replacement of the stones with stones of modern design in the old part of the churchyard. They preferred the original stones to be restored. The Chancellor determined that one of the stones, which was unstable, should be dismantled, cleaned, re-engraved, and re-fixed securely. The other two memorials, where the inscriptions were illegible, should each either be dismantled, cleaned, re-engraved, and re-fixed securely; or alternatively or else replaced with a new memorial to precisely the same design and dimensions as the existing, with same inscription, and of stone similar in colour to the existing.

An extensive programme of reordering was proposed. There were several written objections, but only one party opponent. The Chancellor authorised in principle the majority of the proposals, subject to detailed designs, specifications and costings being approved by the Court or the Diocesan Advisory Committee, and subject to no work being undertaken until 90% of the cost of the works (including fees) had been raised or promised. The remaining items would have to be the subject of further petitions in the light of the current decision.

In 2015, the Chancellor had granted a faculty to authorise several items as part of an ambitious programme of reordering. The present petition sought approval of the four remaining items which the Chancellor did not approve in 2015, namely, installation of a new wooden floor with underfloor heating; the alteration of some pews and the disposal of others; the screening of the vestry; and the introduction of a kitchenette, WC and upper room in the north transept. The Chancellor approved the new flooring and underfloor heating. He did not authorise the new details of the proposed vestry screening, or the kitchenette, WC and upper room, as there needed to be consultation with the local planning authority, Historic England and the Victorian Society. As the proposal regarding the pews had changed, so as to request now permission to remove two-thirds of them, again the Chancellor required the matter to be the subject of a separate petition with further consultation.

In 2015 the parish had embarked on an extensive set of reordering proposals, which had been the subject of faculty petitions in 2015 and 2017.The present application requested an amendment to the 2017 faculty. The petitioners now wished to replace some of the pews with the Alpha SB2M chair, a metal-framed chair upholstered in a beige, wipeable, stain-resistant fabric, instead of the Theo (all wood) chair which had originally been proposed. The Victorian Society argued that a metal-framed upholstered chair would not fit in with the remaining pews. The Chancellor took the view that "no modern chair, however designed, will match a Victorian pew", and he could see "no particular basis for a general rule against upholstered chairs in listed churches." He granted permission for either chair to be installed.

The petitioners wished to replace the gas boilers at the Grade I listed church with new gas boilers. The existing gas boilers had been damaged by flooding. An initial request for like-for-like replacement was delayed because it failed to demonstrate “due regard” to the Church of England’s Net Zero Carbon guidance, which is mandatory under the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules. After criticism from the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC), the petitioners produced a detailed revised options appraisal assessing a wide range of low-carbon heating solutions. The appraisal concluded that a fully electric system was currently impractical due to inadequate electricity supply and cost, but proposed a phased approach: short-term replacement of gas boilers, followed by medium-term integration of air source heat pumps, and longer-term carbon offsetting. The Chancellor held that the petitioners had now properly engaged with the Net Zero guidance and that immediate heating was necessary for the church’s mission and community use. A faculty was therefore granted, but only on strict conditions: the new gas boilers must be hydrogen-ready, supplied on a green tariff, subject to carbon offsetting, and approved for a limited period of five years to 2030, during which progress towards low-carbon alternatives must be demonstrated.

The stained glass of the Victorian east window, designed by the Clutterbuck workshop, had seriously degraded to the extent that some areas of the design had almost disappeared. The petition proposed that the window should be replaced by a new window designed by Thomas Denny. Though it was not part of the present petition, it was proposed that the better parts of the Clutterbuck window should be incorporated into a design in the easternmost window of the north aisle. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of the Clutterbuck window. The Chancellor, being mindful that the east window should provide a key liturgical focus in worship, granted a faculty, subject to a condition (inter alia) that the incumbent and churchwarden should within 30 months apply for a faculty for the retention of parts of the Clutterbuck window in the easternmost window of the north aisle.

The petitioner sought a faculty to reserve a single-depth grave space in the churchyard. She lived in the parish, was an active member of the local community, had supported the church financially and practically, and wished in due course to be buried in the same churchyard as her late partner, whose funeral had taken place there. The petition was supported by the PCC. The difficulty was the acute shortage of burial space. The petition acknowledged that the churchyard was likely to serve parishioners for only about three further years. In those circumstances, the law governing grave reservations where space is scarce applied, as summarised in Re St Mary, Thame, and the petitioner was required to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances”, meaning that her case was “markedly out of the ordinary”. The Chancellor accepted the sincerity and depth of the petitioner’s attachment to the church and community and fully understood her wish for reassurance as to her future burial. However, such attachments were not uncommon among parishioners and could not, of themselves, justify prejudicing the burial rights of others. The petition did not meet the required test and was therefore refused.

The Petition sought permission for the removal of twelve pews and their replacement with 100 chairs. The Church Buildings Council referred to their published advice, which generally advocated the use of high quality wooden chairs (i.e. unupholstered). The Victorian Society also objected to upholstered chairs, though neither the Council not the Society became parties opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the replacement of the pews with chairs, provided the chairs were not upholstered.

Faculty granted for the removal of a single pew, to make room for an audio-visual control desk.