To improve the accessibility, openness, visibility and welcome to visitors to the church, the petitioners wished to create a glazed outer porch to the main entrance of the church; a ramp within the existing porch space; improved entrance lighting; and adjustments to the current doors. The church was built between 1955 and 1957 and is Grade II listed. The Twentieth Century Society had concerns about the structure of the outer porch. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the proposals and granted a faculty. 

The petitioners applied for permission to erect a memorial in the churchyard. Certain features of the design were outside what was authorised to be permitted by a parish priest under the churchyards regulations, namely, the memorial was larger that the maximum measurements allowed; there was an oversized plinth; kerbs were proposed; and it was proposed to have a design on the back of the memorial. The Chancellor approved the design, subject to conditions, including that there be no kerbs, and that there should be a smaller plinth.

Extensive internal and external repairs to the tower and spire were urgently needed to protect people inside and outside the building from the risk of injury from falling masonry, to preserve the structural stability of the spire and to weatherproof and prevent water ingress to tower and spire. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to remove a four-legged black wrought iron stand installed in 1991 around the font, because it made it awkward to conduct baptisms and it also partly obscured a stained glass window in the baptistry, the only window in the church depicting women. The Chancellor, having inspected the frame, considering that it did inhibit movement around the font and that the benefit of removing the frame would outweigh any harm to the church interior. She therefore granted a faculty.

The proposal was to replace an existing plain glass window with a stained glass design depicting St. John the Evangelist in the left hand light and St. George in the right hand light. The window would be a gift to the church from the Rt. Hon. Lord Waddington GCVO, and an inscription at the base of one of the lights would state that it was a  gift to the church from him. The Church Buildings Council raised various concerns, one of which was that there was a general principle that living donors should not be commemorated in stained glass or other church artworks. Whilst recognising such a generally accepted principle, the Deputy Chancellor stated that it was possible to allow exceptions. In the present case the donor was a 'son of the village', and had held office as Home Secretary and as Governor of Bermuda. A Faculty was granted.

An application was made for a book-shaped memorial which had features outside the churchyards regulations. The Parochial Church Council and the Diocesan Advisory Committee had objections to some of the features of the proposed memorial. The Chancellor determined that the memorial would cause only very limited harm to the churchyard and listed church building and he granted a faculty, subject to the constraints on dimensions set out in the judgment and subject to the stone not bearing a picture or photograph.

A memorial was proposed for the grave of a child who had died aged 6. The stone chosen was honed dark grey granite with a stone slab and stone chippings within kerbs. After consultation with the Archdeacon, the Deputy Chancellor decided to grant a faculty for the stone and kerbs, provided that there would be no slab and no chippings. There were already several graves with kerbstones in the churchyard, and the memorial proposed would be in the far corner of the churchyard, where it would only be seen by people visiting that area.

The Vicar and Churchwarden petitioned for a faculty permitting the replacement of their existing upholstered timber framed chairs (installed under faculty as part of a significant reordering in 1985) with new  chrome-framed SB2M chairs, upholstered with a cleanable suede-like ‘Nappa’ fabric , which would be more stackable than the existing chairs. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposal. Whilst being satisfied that a case had been made for replacing upholstered chairs with new upholstered chairs, the Chancellor considered that chrome-framed chairs would create too stark a contrast in the Grade II* church. She therefore declined to approve the proposed chrome-framed chairs, but approved the alternative wooden framed upholstered chairs which the petitioners had offered as a compromise choice.

he petitioner wished to reserve a grave next to that of her late husband. Since before the interment of the petitioner's late husband, the Parochial Church Council had had an informal policy of not supporting any further reservations of graves, in view of the small number of available grave spaces left in the detached burial ground. The Chancellor decided that this was not a case where there were special circumstances to justify him in acting against the established policy of the PCC. He therefore refused to grant a faculty to reserve the grave next to the petitioner's late husband's grave. However, in a note attached to the petition, the Chancellor recorded that he had had a discussion with the parish priest with a view to seeing what could be done by way of pastoral provision. The parish priest agreed that the gravespace next to the grave of the petitioner's husband would be the last space to be used in this burial ground, unless before then it came to be used for the interment of the remains of the petitioner.

The Deputy Chancellor had three matters to consider in relation to an application for a memorial to mark the grave in which the petitioner's wife's ashes were buried: (a) reference on the memorial to the petitioner, still living; (b) a modified version of the poem “Do not stand at my grave and weep”, and (c) an objection by the Parochial Church Council ("PCC") to the type of stone. As to the first, the petitioner agreed to withdraw the proposal, and to leave space for a further inscription.  The Deputy Chancellor did not approve of the design of the proposed memorial, which included some blue stone, and considered that the wording of the version of the poem was 'over personal and inappropriate', but indicated that he would approve  'a more discrete monument with suitably revised wording'.