The Petitioner wished to add the word 'Beloved' to the memorial on his father's grave, on a blank line before the words 'Father, Teacher, Linguist'. The incumbent and one of the churchwardens became parties opponent and there were two parishioners who submitted letters of objection. In 2010 the petitioner had been convicted of murdering his father, and had been sentenced to life imprisonment. Following the murder, the petitioner had buried his father's body under concrete and had made a pretence to the community that his father was still alive. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. He concluded that, given the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to allow the word 'Beloved' to be added to the memorial, and would be likely to give offence to the local community. Furthermore, the word would appear to the public as an expression of the petitioner's continuing denial of the offence for which he had been convicted.

In 2009, the Chancellor of the Diocese of Lichfield refused to grant a faculty for the introduction a raised area at the east end of the nave and the moving of four pews from the south aisle to the north aisle to allow space for a ramp to the raised area. The appeal was allowed.

A faculty was granted for a memorial in the form of an urn.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for a proposed memorial which included kerbs.

The Vicar and Churchwardens wished to introduce six new stained glass windows into the church. Faculty granted.

The proposals were for extensive reordering of the Grade II church and the building of an extension in the churchyard to accommodate toilets, a kitchen, a store room, a meeting room and refurbished choir vestry and vicar's vestry and toilet. The extension would be built over one known grave of a married couple, who died in 1975 and 1980 respectively. The Chancellor was satisfied that, because the church extension would be built on piles, the grave would not be disturbed. He was also satisfied that the petitiners had discharged the burden of proving that (quoting Lord Penzance in Peek v Trower [1881]) "the church will be more convenient, more fit for the accommodation of the parishioners who worship there, more suitable, more appropriate, or more adequate to its purpose than it was before".

The parish wished to replace the existing gas boiler with a new, more energy-efficient gas boiler. In 2017, the archdeacon had given notice of approval without faculty under List B1 of the faculty rules. For various reasons (including the Covid lockdowns), the work was delayed. In 2022, the rules had been changed to make it a requirement that there should be an application for a faculty for a replacement boiler using a fossil fuel supply. Since then the parish, for reasons of pastoral necessity, had carried out the replacement, believing that they could rely on the archdeacon's notice in 2017. The question was, had the archdeacon's notice still been valid following the change in the rules? The Chancellor determined that he was not in a position to determine the question but, having sympathy for the parish's "pastoral and pragmatic" action, suggested that the matter should not be pursued any further, whilst providing lessons for the future.

The priest-in-charge and churchwardens wished to carry out the following works: the disposal of 16 benches; the introduction of Alpha SB2M upholstered chairs; the installation of a screen and projector at the front of the church; the provision of a live link with the crèche; the installation of three metal gates outside to create a safer space for children; and the provision of a key safe. The Chancellor granted a facuty. The petitioners had produced a comprehensive Statement of Need to support the mission and growth of the church. However, the Chancellor did not consider that the peitioners had made a good case for upholstered chairs and the faculty was therefore subject to a condition that the chairs should not be upholstered.

The proposals were for a major re-ordering of the churchyard, which included the removal of a section of the 19th century churchyard wall included in the Grade I listing of the church, the creation of a piazza with seating and a new parking area. The reason for the proposed removal of a section of the wall was to open the church up to the adjoining public square, so as to allow for greater community use of the square and churchyard. The Victorian Society objected strongly to the removal of the wall, but did not wish to be a party opponent. Looking at the wider context of a growing church and a developing and culturally growing city, the Chancellor determined that the significant potential benefits of the scheme to the church and community would outweigh the moderate loss which would be caused by the development.

The proposals were for a major reordering, for most of which there were no objections. Amongst the amenity societies consulted, only the Victorian Society became a party opponent, objecting principally to the proposed removal from the nave of "one of the most magnificent and extensive suites of Victorian church seating in the country". In weighing the benefits which the proposals would bring against any loss to the historical and architectural importance of the church, the Chancellor had to consider the evidence of the petitioners as to the financial viability of the church if the works were not carried out. On balance he determined in favour of the petitioners and granted a faculty.