An extensive reordering was proposed for a Grade II listed Victorian church. The Victorian Society and Heritage England, though not parties opponent, objected to the replacement of most of the pews with chairs, replacement of the dado panelling and replacement of the stone and wood floor with new wooden flooring. The Chancellor determined that the resulting public benefit (including liturgical freedom, pastoral well-being, opportunities for mission, and putting the church to viable uses that were consistent with its role as a place of worship and mission) would outweigh any harm that would be caused by the changes.

The petitioners sought permission to (1) excavate, inspect and repair the current trench arch system; and (2) if found to be beyond repair, install an extended trench arch drainage system within the churchyard, connected to existing facilities, with the addition of a macerator. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to (inter alia) a condition requiring a continuing archaeological watching brief.

There was a proposal to build an extension to the north-east corner of the church, which would involve the demolition of a 19th century vestry. There were 16 parties opponent and many other objectors by letter. The need for the extension was as a result of the sale of a building opposite the church, which had been used by many church groups, but had fallen into great disrepair. The Chancellor was satisfied that the proposed extension would not result in harm to the significance of the church as a
building of special architectural or historic interest, and he accordingly granted a faculty.

Petition for installation of replacement sound system and installation of a projector screen in a Grade I church. Objections from Church Buildings Council and Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in respect of the screen. Re St Alkmund Duffield considered. Faculty granted for both items.

In spite of reservations by a few parishioners, the Chancellor approved the acceptance of a gift of a silver chalice and paten in memory of a former regular worshipper at the church, the late Mrs. Mary Rowe, the chalice to be inscribed on the base: "In memory of Mary Rowe 1938-2001".

The Rector and Churchwardens petitioned for a faculty to authorise the removal of a large Victorian font and its platform from a position near to the main church door of a small medieval church and the placing of a new, much smaller font of Purbeck stone at the east end of the nave. The Chancellor granted a Faculty. As to a proposal to bury the old font, the Chancellor did not consider that appropriate and made the faculty subject to the following conditions: "(a) every reasonable attempt should be made to transfer the font to another church or chapel, (b) failing such transfer, museums should be contacted, (c) failing a museum, sale on the open market should be considered, (d) whatever disposal is contemplated, my prior consent will be required."

This was an appeal by the Victorian Society against the judgment of the Chancellor of Winchester Diocese of 12 March 2015, granting a faculty to replace the existing, Victorian font in the church with a new font made of Purbeck stone. The new font would be smaller than the Victorian font and would be installed on the south eastern, as opposed to south western, side of the nave. The Court decided that the Chancellor had erred and acted unfairly in his purported application of the written representations procedure, and that his judgment on the merits was flawed by several errors of law. Accordingly, the Court ordered that both his judgment and the resulting faculty be set aside.

The proposed works were the installation of four stained glass panels in the three south chancel window openings of the Grade I listed church and the shortening of all but four of seventeen pews, which had been stored behind the organ, in order to make the pews more easily moveable and to allow more flexible use of the nave. The Chancellor, having considered a detailed analysis of situation prepared by the petitioners, granted a faculty for all the proposed works.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the removal of a mural from the west front of the church, a brick building consecrated in 1933 and unlisted. The mural represented the Last Judgment, and had been  painted by a local artist. The mural had never been popular and was not thought to be of great merit. The mural had faded, and its subject-matter, showing towers ablaze, was a cause for concern, in view of the Grenfell Tower fire. The Chancellor considered that the removal of the mural and the restoration of the brickwork on the west front 'would be a benefit from the point of view of heritage and mission'.

The proposed works to the Grade II church involved a "a significant remodelling" of the porch. The Victorian Society, though not a party opponent, expressed strong objections that the works would involve the demolition of a “principal element” of the listed building, as the design would be so different from the original porch. Historic England expressed a preference for the porch being rebuilt close to its original design. The Diocesan Advisory Committee's only reservation was the proposed curtain heater over the door. The Chancellor determined that the benefits from the lighter and more comfortable and more welcoming internal arrangements which would result from the proposed glazing, outweighed the harm to the church’s special significance, and he therefore granted a faculty.