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.

The vicar and churchwardens sought a faculty for the installation of a new audio-visual system in the church. Historic England suggested that a more adaptable and less permanent solution should be adopted, given that "the ever improving nature of audio-visual technology will also mean that these proposed screens will likely need to be replaced in a relatively short period of time". The Chancellor saw no reason to make the petitioners delay the installation of a new system pending new technology and he granted a faculty.

A woman had died and had been buried in the grave of her husband. She left eight children. One of the daughters and her husband were appointed executors and sole beneficiaries of her will. This had caused a rift in the family, including a dispute as to the validity of the will. The executors applied for a memorial, which the priest in charge approved as within her delegated authority under the churchyards regulations. Not all the siblings had been consulted or had agreed on the proposed inscription. Four of the siblings petitioned that all the siblings should be required to agree a new form of words. The Deputy Chancellor took the view it was doubtful that the Court could make such an order. Instead, he had to consider whether the inscription was appropriate, or whether there were sufficiently good reasons for removal and replacement of the memorial. He decided that the inscription was not inappropriate, and there was therefore no good reason to order the removal of the stone, simply because there had not been consultation with and unanimous agreement between all the siblings.

There were two proposals: (1) to replace the existing 20th century brick extension to the north of the church with a new church community hall and (2) various items of reordering inside the church. The Victorian Society  objected to a number of details of the both proposals.The Chancellor granted a faculty the extension and the internal reordering, with the exception of the removal of two pews and the removal and reuse of the stone from the pulpit, for which he did not consider that an adequate case had been made.

This judgment deals with two outstanding matters following the judgment in Re St. John the Evangelist Manthorpe [2019] ECC Lin 4, namely, dismantling of the pulpit and repositioning of the chancel pews. The reason for the repositioning of the chancel pews follows on from the altar rail being moved westwards to allow more ease in administering communion. The Chancellor approved the proposal. However, he did not give permission for the 're-imagining' of the pulpit into two separate tiems, but suggested that the petitioners should take advice about moving the pulpit within the church.