The petitioner wished to disinter the remains of his great-great-grandparents, who died in 1879 and 1910, because an extension of the church was to be built and the grave would be against the wall of the extension and have paths on the remaining three sides. Also, it was likely that people would take a short cut over the grave to the entrance to the extension. It was proposed to reinter the remains elsewhere in the same churchyard. The Chancellor decided that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of a faculty.

Faculty sought for the conversion of the existing vestry into a toilet and tea-point, together with the provision of vestry facilities within the base of the tower. Objections to conversion of the vestry received. Faculty granted.

There were two petitions seeking to carry out substantial reordering in the church. The Georgian Group and the Victorian Society had objections, but did not become parties opponent. There were no other objections. The proposals included: clearing the existing furniture from the chancel and placing a new altar in the middle of the chancel, with new furniture around it; removal of a number of rows of pews; replacing the organ; creating a narthex/hall area. The Chancellor was satisfied that the need for the scheme outweighed any harm it would cause to the building, and he therefore granted a faculty.

The proposals were for a reordering of the north aisle by removing the pews and lowering the Victorian softwood timber pew platforms to the same level as the ceramic tiled gangways, to create a large area for multi-functional use. Provision was to be made for the installation of a servery and cupboards, and for the area to be rewired and a new lighting system installed. The petition contained no proposals for replacing the removed pews with chairs. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a case for the reordering, but declined to grant a faculty until the design, make and number of replacement chairs for the north aisle had been approved by the court.

The petitioners wished to remove the front four rows of pews from the nave of the Grade II* church, in order to provide a more flexible space, particularly for services and events involving children. It was also proposed to replace the pews with upholstered chairs. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the upholstered chairs, and Historic England and the Georgian Group held similar views. The Chancellor was satisfied that a case had been made out for the removal of the front four rows of pews, but refused to approve replacement chairs with upholstered backs, which, in the red colour proposed, would create an adverse visual impact in front of the remaining pews.

Unbeknown to the incumbent of the church, some cremated remains were buried very close to a sewer running through the churchyard. This fact came to light when repair work needed to be carried out on the sewer, which might cause damage to the memorial and disturb the remains. The deceased's widow requested a faculty to exhume the remains and reinter them in the same churchyard about 30 feet from their current position. The Chancellor was satisfied that the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional to justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation and reinterment.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the replacement of the pews in the centre of the church nave and the chairs in the north and south aisles with new wooden chairs having upholstered seats and backs. The judgment contains a discussion by the Chancellor on the nature of the Church Buildings Council Guidance on Seating and its application.

There was a petition by the Vicar and Churchwardens seeking permission to convert a fixed lavabo in the sanctuary of a nineteenth century church for use as an aumbry. The Chancellor granted a Faculty. Although the petition was unopposed, the Chancellor decided to give a detailed written judgment, in order to explain his reasoning, particularly with regard to the questions raised in the Court of Arches judgment Re St. Alkmund Duffield, and their application to the subject matter of the present petition.

A faculty had already been granted for the carrying out of an extensive reordering. This included the removal of an Edwardian font. The present proposal was to place a medieval font where the Edwardian font stood. Faculty granted. The Chancellor considered what should be done with the Edwardian font, pursuant to the first petition, which included in the schedule of works the burial of the Edwardian font where it stood. The Chancellor decided that it was not appropriate to bury the Edwardian font, but that it should be re-sited in another part of the church. The judgment contains a brief discussion about whether a church can have two fonts. The first petition was amended to delete the proposal to bury the Edwardian font.

A new underfloor heating system was proposed for the church, and the proposals included replacing the wooden floor boards of the nave with hand-made tiles, and replacing the wood block flooring in the Lady Chapel with limestone. The Victorian Society was originally, on aesthetic grounds, against replacing the wooden floor boards  and the wood block flooring. However, the evidence of the Senior Project Consultant was that wood flooring over the underfloor heating would be less thermally efficient. At a meeting of the Victorian Society, the Church Building Council and the Diocesan Advisory Committee, a compromise version of the specification for the design of the tile flooring was agreed. The Chancellor granted a faculty.