The petitioners wished to separate the altar from the reredos, modify it, so that it would be free-standing, and move it away from the east end, to enable the priest to celebrate facing west; to relocate the reredos to the link between the church and the church hall ; and to renovate an old table to become a credence table. The Victorian Society objected to the separation of the reredos and altar and proposed re-siting of the reredos. The Church Buildings Council objected to the reredos being placed to the link to the hall. The Chancellor considered that there was a good case for moving the altar to allow west-facing celebration, and also safety benefits for the restricted space in the east end of this small church; also  the scheme would allow the retention, rather than disposal, of the reredos. There would also be the benefit of exposing the original stained glass window hidden by the reredos. The Chancellor therefore granted a faculty.

The petition proposed a ramped access at the entrance to the church, a kitchenette at the west end of the church and the erection of a single storey extension to house a WC. Four individuals presented written objections, but the Diocesan Advisory Committee, Historic Buildings and Places and the Church Buildings Council approved of the proposals. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had presented a sufficiently good case for the proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The Team Rector and Churchwardens sought a faculty for substantial internal reordering, to create a major transformation of the church's interior, in order to further its mission and community use. Almost half of the judgment deals with the proposal to remove the existing pews and replace them with wooden chairs with padded seats and backs. Other major items considered in detail are the removal of the pulpit, the replacement of the pipe organ with an electronic organ, and the re-siting of the font. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made out a good case for all the proposals and granted a faculty.

The petitioners proposed a 21-space car park in the churchyard of the Victorian Grade II church, in order to formalise existing parking arrangements. There was a shortage of available parking for visitors to the church and parish centre and parking in the churchyard already occurred. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the works were designed to “have a low impact visually and to protect the grass surface of the churchyard, to minimise disturbance of grave sites and to fulfil an obvious need for visitors to the church”.

The works proposed were for the construction of below ground drainage infrastructure in the churchyard, east of the chancel, to facilitate the future installation of toilets in the church, which would be the subject of a separate faculty petition. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioners sought faculties to reserve grave spaces in the churchyard, where it was estimated that only four years’ burial capacity remained. All petitions had PCC support; one was objected to by another petitioner, though in respectful terms. The Chancellor reviewed the principles in Re St. Mary Haversham [2025] ECC Oxf 2 and related authorities, which establish that where space is limited, faculties will not normally be granted unless exceptional circumstances “markedly out of the ordinary” are shown. The burden lay on each petitioner. Mr. Bainbridge, on the electoral roll and with strong family connections, relied on his lifelong association with the church and community service. Mr. McAllen, a former vicar, pointed to over a decade’s ministry and continued worship. Mr. Wolstencroft, a parishioner of 65 years and long-serving lay leader, emphasised his extensive service. The Chancellor recognised all three as having longstanding and valuable ties with the church but concluded that none demonstrated circumstances sufficiently exceptional to justify grave reservations where capacity was so restricted. With regret, all three petitions were refused. No criticism of character or parish connection was intended.

The petitioners wished to reorder the interior of the church to provide toilets, a kitchen, storage and improved heating. The church was built in 1869 by the architect W. H. Crossland and is Grade II listed. The Parochial Church Council's objective was to ensure that the church stayed open for church and community use and thereby avoided closure. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Notwithstanding the general aspirations of the petitioners,  he considered that the works would result in harm to the significance of this church as a building of special architectural or historic interest, and the petitioners had not produced sufficient substantive evidence of the prospective benefits of the works which might outweigh any harm that might be caused to the historic integrity of the church. 

Removal of plinth beneath font, and repositioning of font to one side at west end of church; church dating from 1913, by John Oldrid Scott; not listed; original font and plinth repositioned in 1962 to current location centrally at west end of nave; relocation would enable use of the west end of the nave for more flexible community uses; plinth said to present trip hazard; health and safety issues considered; Duffield principles considered (Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158); written objections considered; limited harm occasioned by relocation of font considered to be outweighed by benefits of the proposal; faculty granted.

The Vicar and Churchwardens applied for a faculty to authorise the removal of all of the pews from the chancel and nave of the Grade II church and replace them with 120 wooden upholstered chairs. There were objections to removal of the pews and to replacement chairs being upholstered. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of all the pews and suggested that the existing carpet should be removed. The Chancellor determined that the petitioners had made a good case for the removal of the pews from the nave and for replacement chairs with upholstered seats, but not for the removal of the pews from the chancel. The retention of the pews in the chancel would maintain a discrete formal area, which would not affect the main objective of allowing for much greater flexibility of worship and other events in the nave.

The assistant curate and churchwardens applied for a faculty to have the church bell restored and rehung. The bell had been removed to the premises of a bell maintenance company in 2016, with the Archdeacon's permission, as it had become unsafe. A legacy had become available to meet most of the cost of the repair and rehanging. There was one objector, who did not become a party opponent. The Chancellor saw no substance in the grounds of objection and granted a faculty.