The war memorial in the churchyard was dedicated in 1921 and bore the names of those who gave their lives in the First World War. Subsequently, the names of those who lost their lives in the Second World War were added. The Parochial Church Council now wished to have the memorial refurbished in time for the forthcoming commemoration of 100 years from the end of the First World War. As part of the refurbishment, they wished to have the names of the fallen gilded. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not approve of gilded lettering. The Chancellor granted a faculty allowing the names to be gilded: the DAC's decision was based on an aesthetic evaluation, which the Chancellor felt was overruled by the depth of feeling of the petitioners to make the names prominent; a photograph of the memorial in 1921 shows that the lettering stood out; the aging of the memorial would allow it in due time to be more keeping with the church; the names of the fallen should be clearly legible to the local community.

A reordering scheme was proposed. The Victorian Society and the Church Buildings Council expressed concern about the following parts of the scheme: (1) the removal of the Victorian pews; (2) the introduction of plastic upholstered chairs; and (3) the introduction of carpeting to the north aisle. The Chancellor approved of the scheme, apart from the plastic upholstered chairs. She adjourned the proceedings for six months, to give the petitioners time to select an alternative type of chair and apply for an amendment of the faculty petition.

The Chancellor considered a faculty petition for internal works at the Grade I listed church of St Kenelm, Minster Lovell. The proposals included re-ordering the north transept to create a WC, servery and heritage/interpretation space, removing and adapting some mid-19th-century pews, installing a ramped accessible route (with possible removable handrails), relocating the war memorial, and creating a new accessible external path to the south door. Although the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) objected—mainly to pew removal, handrails in the crossing, and the handling of damp—the DAC ultimately did not object, subject to extensive conditions. Applying the Duffield test for listed churches, the Chancellor accepted that there would be some harm to the church’s significance, particularly from the loss and relocation of pews and visual intrusion, but found it limited and justified. The public benefits - improved accessibility, welcome, facilities for visitors and worshippers, heritage interpretation, and the long-term viability and mission of the church - were clear and convincing and outweighed the harm. A faculty was therefore granted, with detailed conditions to control design, conservation, drainage, ventilation, archaeology, and (if needed) handrails.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave 'until I die'. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but only for a term of 25 years, to provide certainty to the church as to the period of reservation. The Chancellor pointed out that, if at the end of the 25 years the petitioner wished to continue to reserve the space, an application could be made for an extension.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave 'until I die'. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but only for a term of 25 years, to provide certainty to the church as to the period of reservation. The Chancellor pointed out that, if at the end of the 25 years the petitioner wished to continue to reserve the space, an application could be made for an extension.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the felling of a sycamore tree. The petitioners had claimed that the work was necessary because the tree’s roots were damaging the churchyard retaining wall and the foundations of the church. In giving his judgment, the Chancellor set out the legal and practical aspects which should be taken into account when determining an application to remove a tree from a churchyard.

The petition related to the construction of a new two-storey extension on the north side of the church building and a car park to the west. The amenity societies approved the proposal, but two parishioners became parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that there was no reason why he should not follow the decision of the local planning authority to grant a planning consent, and he therefore granted a faculty for the works.

The petitioners wished to have their father's ashes (interred in 2004) exhumed and reinterred in the grave of their mother, whose body was buried in 2015. Considering the guidelines in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002], the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty on the basis that (a) the reinterment would be into a family grave and would free up a cremation plot

The petitioner wished to place a memorial on her mother's grave. The parish priest declined to authorise the proposed memorial, as it did not fall within the scope of the Diocesan Guidelines. The design resembled a scroll, between two hand-carved angels, above a plinth resting on a base.  The central “scroll” and the plinth and base were in Rustenburg dark grey granite, and the two angels in a paler stone. The Chancellor considered that carvings of angels in full relief would not be appropriate to the setting, but he would not object to carvings of angels in low relief on the memorial stone. On that basis he granted a faculty for a memorial, subject to the final design being approved by the Diocesan Advisory Committee or, in default of such approval, by the court.

Outside the north wall of the church is an area for cremated remains containing a large number of wedge-shaped memorials set on stone slabs 18 inches square. However, some larger bases which had been introduced had adversely affected the appearance of the area. The churchwardens therefore proposed setting plain slab bases on the unused plots in anticipation of wedge-shaped memorials being put on them in the future, in order to minimise the risk of incorrectly sized bases being laid; to keep the area looking uniform and tidy; and to avoid the churchwardens having to take remedial steps, which might give rise to pastoral difficulties. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposal, but the Chancellor was satisfied that there was a problem which needed to be addressed, and he accordingly granted a faculty.