In 2014, the inspecting architect had recommended Zinsser Grade 1 paint for the redecoration of the interior of the church as authorised by faculty. The paint proved to be totally unsuitable. It was impermeable, and the migration of salts from the walls to the paint layer caused it to expand and flake. In 2017, the Chancellor ruled that the Zinsser paint should be removed and the walls repainted with limewash or an alternative paint approved as an amendment to the original faculty. Options put forward by a new architect were (a) to maintain scaffolding in the nave for 5 years to monitor the condition of the walls before further repainting, or (b) replastering and repainting, which would destroy fragments of old wall paintings. The Church Buildings Council, Historic England and the Society for the protection of Ancient Buildings rejected both (a) and (b), preferring overpainting, which the Parochial Church Council did not consider would solve the problem of the Zinsser paint flaking in future. The Chancellor granted a faculty to remove the Zinsser paint from the walls, and also the plaster beneath it and then to apply new render to the walls, followed by a suitable number of coats of limewash to the fresh wall surface. 

The Vicar and churchwarden of a 12th century Grade II listed church sought permission to replace the pews and pew platforms with chairs, to provide underfloor heating and to carry out other ancillary work. In considering the guidelines laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013], the Chancellor determined that: "The petitioners have satisfied me on the information placed before the court that the public benefit would outweigh any harm." Faculty granted.

This judgment is supplemental to a judgment given by the Chancellor in June 2015, when he approved a scheme of re-ordering, but postponed a decision on the type of chair to replace the pews, in order to give the PCC more time to consider various options. In the present judgment, the Chancellor declined to authorise two types of chair (some for 'core' seating and some for 'supplementary' seating). For the sake of uniformity, he authorised only one type of chair: "Introducing a variety of chairs from two different manufacturers, some with arms, some without, some upholstered, some not, would compromise the genius of the reordering which is to create a unified and holistic worship space."

The petitioners sought a faculty for an extension to the Grade I listed church, to provide facilities including lavatories, a Sunday school space, kitchen facilities, a meeting room and a storage area. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings had written an initial letter expressing concerns about the proposals, but did not respond to the Chancellor's directions to give further particulars of their objections, nor to an invitation to become a party to the proceedings. The Diocesan Advisory Committee, local planning authority, English Heritage and the Council for the Care of Churches approved the proposals. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The Vicar and Churchwardens and NET Coverage Solutions Ltd. applied for a faculty to authorise the installation of telecommunications equipment at the church. There were various notices of objection, but only one objector became a party opponent. Shortly before the planned hearing date, the petitioners withdrew their petition. The party opponent claimed costs aginst the petitioners on the grounds that the petitioners had acted unreasonably. The Chancellor determined that the petitioners had, to a certain extent, acted unreasonably in the matter. He directed that the party opponent's costs be reduced by 10% and that half the reduced amount of costs should be paid by the petitioners.

Petition for scheme including removal of pews and pew platforms at the back of the nave and in the north aisle and the construction of a new floor at the same level as existing aisles; installation of a kitchen at the back of the north aisle; introduction of new cupboards in the north transept; introduction of new chairs; improvements to the heating system". Faculty granted. The judgment contains a discussion as to what constitutes "demolition" or "partial demolition".

There was an application for a faculty to remove five notice boards  from the church porch and replace them with free-standing notice boards at the back of the church; also the disposal of some pews, the shortening of two pews, and the permanent relocation of other pews allowed under an Archdeacon's Licence for temporary reordering. The Chancellor, applying the guidance in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013], determined that the degree of harm to the church would not be significant, and that the public benefit of the works would outweigh any harm. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to erect in the churchyard an unpolished light grey granite memorial on which would be etched an image of an eagle in black enamel. The Chancellor determined that the proposed stone would be acceptable for the churchyard, and he was prepared to allow the image of an eagle, provided that it was etched but not coloured black.

The petitioner wished to remove her father's cremated remains from Wymering's separate churchyard extension to a family plot in Waterlooville Cemetery, where the petitioners' mother wished to have her remains interred in due course. Other reasons given for the proposal were that the family had expected the ashes to be buried in the area set aside for cremated remains in the churchyard, but at the funeral they did not feel able to object to the grave having been dug in the extension. Also, the grave was in a position under what was now a large overgrowing tree. Whilst the location and condition of the plot would not in themselves be grounds to justify exhumation, the Chancellor did not think it would be a satisfactory solution to suggest that the petitioner's mother's ashes should be buried with her husband's ashes in the existing plot, or that the petitioner's mother's ashes should be buried separate from her husband's, in view of the distress which that would cause to the family. He therefore granted a faculty for the exhumation and reinterment as requested.

The petitioner’s son had died in 2022 and his body had been buried in the churchyard at Stambourne. Her son’s family had since moved away from Stambourne and it was not known where they now lived. The petitioner wished to have her son’s remains exhumed and reinterred in consecrated ground in Northwood Cemetery, Middlesex, near where the petitioner and other members of the family lived. The petitioner claimed that a mistake had been made because the decision was made to inter the deceased in Stambourne because it was expected that his wife and children would be staying in the village, otherwise the deceased would have been buried at Northwood, near his family home. Also, travelling to visit her son’s grave had caused the petitioner to suffer from depression. The Chancellor determined that there were insufficient exceptional circumstances to justify exhumation and she therefore refused to grant a faculty.