The petitioner wished to install in the churchyard a headstone commemorating two members of his family whose ashes were scattered at a local estate. The intention was for the stone to be placed with memorials to other members of the family. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposal for the following reasons: it was not possible to determine whether the deceased relatives would have wished to have a memorial in the churchyard; available space in this popular area should be retained for graves rather than family memorials; the requested memorial would mark neither a grave nor an interment of cremated remains; and, whilst the proposed memorial was intended to match other family memorials, a new stone and its lettering ‘could be very conspicuous next to its weathered neighbours.’ For these reasons, the Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. He also declined an amended proposal to attach a white marble plaque to an existing family memorial.

The former vicar and wardens wished to dispose of three of the four oak choir stalls and clergy seats removed pursuant to a Faculty granted on 29th September 2004 and to place the fourth stall in the lower vestry. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to remove the Victorian pews from a Grade II* listed church and replace them with wooden upholstered chairs. The Victorian Society and Historic England both accepted that the pews were of no particular merit, but objected to them being replaced with upholstered chairs, though they did not wish to be parties opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the removal of the pews, on condition that the replacement chairs should be unupholstered and of a design to be agreed between the petitioners and the Diocesan Advisory Committee, and in default of such agreement to be decided by the Court.

In 2016 the Chancellor had granted a faculty for reordering works including the replacement of the pews with chairs. He had declined to approve upholstered chairs, but approved the introduction of unupholstered chairs. The petitioners now sought, after much research and consultation, an amendment of the 2016 faculty to authorise a different type of upholstered chair with upholstered seats and upholstered back pads within a wooden frame. The Chancellor concluded that "as the chairs are to have wooden frames and those frames are to have a dark stain applied to them, the additional visual impact of upholstered back pad, though real, will be modest. That additional impact is outweighed by the benefits to be obtained and by the fact that such chairs are the clear preference of the worshipping community after what I accept has been careful consideration of the alternatives." He therefore directed that the faculty granted in 2016 be amended accordingly.

The petitioner wished to exhume from the churchyard the cremated remains of his father and to have the remains reinterred in a cemetery with the remains of his mother, who had subsequently died. Applying the principles in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, the Chancellor found no special circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation.

The petitioners wished to remove permanently from the 1960s church the original pulpit, which  had not been used for 20 years. Three individuals objected to the proposal, but the Chancellor determined that the pulpit 'does little, if anything, for the look of the interior, and it is not an item of intrinsic worth or merit.' He accordingly granted a faculty.

The church is surrounded on three sides by iron railings with a bar at the top surmounted by finials in the shape of a fleur-de-lys. In 2014 a child climbed the fence in an attempt to recover a frisbee, which had flown into the churchyard. The child slipped and impaled his head on one of the finials, causing damage to his jaw. The PCC sought to remove the risk of another similar incident by seeking permission to place a bar across the tops of the finials. Notwithstanding that the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not approve the proposal, but suggested alternatives, the Chancellor granted a faculty.

The priest-in-charge and churchwardens sought permission to reuse for burials three specific areas of the churchyard where there were no memorials and no evidence of recent burials. The Chancellor considered that it was appropriate to grant a faculty to allow reburial, rather than have the churchyard closed for burials after the remaining space for five new graves in the currently used part of the churchyard had been filled. As it appeared that the risk of encountering human remains was greatest in area 3, the Chancellor directed that areas 1 and 2 should be used first. The Chancellor added a number of other conditions to the grant of the faculty.

The proposals were to install two matching etched-glass memorial screens and doors in the north and south archways at the east end of the nave, and also install a new projector and a 'smart' glass projector screen, which would be transparent when not in use, and opaque when used with the projector. The Victorian Society objected to the proposed projector screen. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the proposals would not cause more than minimal harm to the significance of this church as a building of special architectural or historic interest.

The petition related to the south transept of the Grade I church and the installation of underfloor heating beneath a new stone floor; the provision of a discreet tea point; and the introduction of heritage boards. The historic memorial slabs laid into the floor would be left in situ, covered by the heating elements and the new floor. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings entered an objection and became a party opponent. The Chancellor dismissed the petition. He took the view that the proposals were unlikely to achieve what the parish seemed to want, namely, to heat the whole church which is ‘intolerably cold’ for several months of the year. The proposed underfloor heating in the south transept would only provide a partial solution, and one which would be largely compromised due to the inability to isolate the south transept as a sealed environment.