The petition proposed an extensive program of reordering. The Victorian Society became a party to the proceedings, opposed to the proposals for upholstered chairs and carpet in the nave. The Chancellor granted a Faculty. He was not prusaded by the argument of the Victorian Society that persuaded that carpet in the Grade II building would cause the damaging ‘domestication’ of the interior. With regard to the upholstered chairs, he concluded that 'the choice of chair will inflict some modest harm on the visual aesthetics of the building, but ... this parish has demonstrated a benefit which will outweigh the harm.'

The petitioner, who did not live in the parish and therefore had no legal right to be buried in it, wished to reserve a double depth grave in the churchyard for himself and his wife, next to the grave of their son, who had died in a tragic accident at the age of 24. The associate priest objected (without becoming a party opponent) on the grounds that spaces for burial were limited and since 2021 the parish had had a policy of not approving further grave reservations, as the churchyard was likely to be full within about six years. In the circumstances, the Chancellor felt it would be unfair to override the parish policy and refused to grant a faculty.

This was a determination of two petitions relating to: a new boiler and changes to the heating system; new lighting and power systems; redecoration; reordering of the chancel; changes to the south door; and disposal of chancel furniture. The Chancellor granted a faculty on the basis that "and the harm to the significance of the building caused by removal of furniture and fittings is outweighed by the liturgical freedom created, and the public benefit to be gained by having a flexible area to utilise for worship and other diverse activities".

There was a proposal to remove the pews from the side aisles, with a view to replacing them in due course with new seats. In the meantime there were some plastic seats in the church, which could be placed in the side aisles when a large congregation was expected. The Chancellor was concerned that no detailed proposals had been presented in respect of replacement chairs. He granted a faculty for the removal of the side aisle pews, subject to conditions that the existing plastic chairs should not be left in the side aisles when not needed, and that the petitioners should by the end of 2019 put forward detailed proposals for replacement chairs.

Re-ordering proposals included the provision of a meeting room (with glass front); servery and toilet facilities; a gallery above the proposed meeting room; an upgrading of the heating and lighting installations; and moving both the font and war memorials to new locations within the Church to accommodate the works. The guidelines in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013] were considered. A Faculty was granted.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the re-use of an area of the churchyard in which there were no memorials and where it was believed that there had been no burials for at least 75 years.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the re-use of an area of the churchyard in which there were no memorials and where it was believed that there had been no burials for at least 150 years.

There was a major program of reordering, including an extension to the church, which would necessitate moving the font. The Chancellor granted a faculty, notwithstanding that the font would no longer be as near to the principal entrance as it could otherwise conveniently be.

The Parochial Church Council (PCC) petitioned to remove the remaining century-old pews from the Grade II listed church to create flexible seating for wider community use. The proposal included replacing pews in the nave with heavy wooden chairs and adding 100 lightweight, stackable chairs for occasional use. Timber from some pews would be repurposed into a screen concealing stored chairs. The scheme also sought to relocate the fifteenth-century font from the southeast corner to a position opposite the main entrance, restoring its traditional symbolic placement. Three individuals objected, arguing that removing pews would damage the church’s character and waste funds. Because the proposed upholstered seating contravened ChurchCare Guidance, the Chancellor referred the matter to the Church Buildings Council (CBC), which supported flexible seating but warned against upholstery. The petitioners justified the upholstery choice on practical and aesthetic grounds. Applying the principles from Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2012], the Chancellor found no harm to the church’s historical or architectural significance. The upholstery concerns were satisfactorily addressed, and the font move was reversible. Accordingly, the Chancellor granted the faculty as requested.

The petitioner wished to erect in the churchyard a memorial of black polished granite with matching kerbs filled with grey granite chippings. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty as the proposed memorial was outside the churchyards regulations and he also considered it inappropriate for the particular churchyard. He also made it clear that the unlawful introduction of unsuitable memorials of a similar type in the past did not justify the current proposal.