The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the removal of a number of short side aisle pews as, in applying the guidelines in Re St. Alkmund Duffield, he found that the petitioners had failed to provide a clear and convincing justification for the removal of the pews. He stated that if the PCC wished to remove the pews they should produce a more comprehensive plan for re-ordering the interior of the church. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the removal of a number of short side aisle pews as, in applying the guidelines in Re St. Alkmund Duffield, he found that the petitioners had failed to provide a clear and convincing justification for the removal of the pews. He stated that if the PCC wished to remove the pews they should produce a more comprehensive plan for re-ordering the interior of the church.

The petition proposed an extensive reordering of the church, to facilitate greater use for the community, including: new kitchen and toilets; a disabled access ramp; a second fire exit; replacing pews with chairs; disposal of the pulpit; moving the font; new heating and lighting; and works to the western gallery. The Chancellor declined to grant a faculty for the removal of the pulpit, on the basis that disposing of the pulpit would constitute serious harm to the interior of the church, but the public benefit, if any, would be small. He also declined to grant a faculty for new lighting in the absence of detailed plans and designs. But he granted a faculty for all the other items, and included a condition (inter alia) that the replacement chairs, to be subject to approval by the Diocesan Advisory Committee, should not be upholstered.

The Associate Rector and Churchwardens petitioned for the removal of the nave and aisle pews. The church has no associated church hall and was seeking to adapt its building for use for both community and church-based activities. Objections were received from two private individuals, and concerns were expressed by the Victorian Society, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Local Planning authority, all of whom suggested alternative proposals involving the retention of some pews. The Deputy Chancellor made it clear that it was not for the objectors to put forward alternative proposals, but for the Chancellor to decide whether a convincing case had been made out for the actual proposals in the petition. Faculty granted.

The petition sought approval for major re-ordering, including the replacement of the pews with chairs. Faculty granted. Applying the principles laid down in Re St. Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158, the Chancellor was satisfied that there was clear and convincing justification for carrying out the proposals.

There was an application for a confirmatory faculty to approve the covering of the north-aisle roof of a Grade I listed church with a non-metallic roofing membrane called Sarnafil, which had been carried out without faculty consent. Although the Diocesan Advisory Committee had been consulted, one of the churchwardens ordered the work to be done (with the approval of the Parochial Church Council) without faculty. Instead of directing that the unauthorised work be undone, the Chancellor granted a faculty with the proviso that the Sarnafil roofing should be inspected and maintained regularly and that, when it needed to be replaced, the church should apply for permission for a replacement form of roofing, "which should be decided by myself or my successor, and there should be no presumption that because Sarnafil is already there, then Sarnafil should be used in the future." The Chancellor directed that the churchwarden should personally pay the costs of the proceedings.

The churchyard of All Saints Church had been closed for further burials by an Order in Council in 1857. In 2011 the site of a 14th century Dominican Friary within the grounds of a local hospital had been excavated, and the human remains of two people had been found. A licence granted by the Secretary of State to Pontefract and District Archaeological Society ('PDAS') permitted exhumation of the remains and reinterment by a certain dated in a place where burials could lawfully take place. Without any permission being sought through the then incumbent and without his knowledge, the remains were reinterred in All Saints churchyard in 2015 at a very brief ceremony attended by a deacon of All Saints, who approved the interment (he later died), a Roman Catholic priest and a representative of PDAS. In view of the Order in Council, the burial was unlawful. The illegality came to light when PDAS approached the present incumbent for permission for a stone to mark the interments. The fact that the burial was unlawful was resolved by a successful application to the Privy Council for an amendment to the 1857 Order in Council, so as to permit an exception allowing the interment in the churchyard of the human remains recovered from the site of the former Friary, and by the Deputy Chancellor granting a confirmatory faculty for the interments.

A telecoms company wished to erect wifi transmission equipment on the tower of the church, to facilitate broadband reception in the area and to provide photographic security protection for the church roof. The transmission equipment and receivers were small in size. A number of people objected that the effects of the radiation emitted from the transmission equipment would be deleterious to their and others’ health. The Chancellor, after hearing evidence from two experts, who stated that there was no evidence of health problems related to the type of equipment proposed, granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to construct a timber-framed, self-contained chapel, in the north aisle of the church, which could be heated economically, the replacement of the failed Victorian heating system being too costly. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the benefits would outweigh the harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the Grade I listed church. Also, the structure would not alter the fabric into which it was inserted and could be easily removed in the future.

The petitioners wished to remove and dispose of a ‘redundant altar table’ of varnished pine and said to be 'of no historic significance' and 'of no particular aesthetic or other value', in order to improve the east end of the north aisle of the church, which was used as a social area, and to introduce a table and cupboards, for the serving of refreshments, and a more practical floor covering. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to erect in the churchyard a memorial to their late mother. The memorial proposed was to be a bird bath, carved from grey, unpolished Finland granite, containing the name, and dates of birth and death of the deceased, and inscribed with the words: “The goat’s milk is sour.” (These words had been used by the family for over 30 years in times of stress, to relieve tension, and no-one had objected to them.) But the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposed design, on the basis that it might form a precedent. However, the Parochial Church Council approved the proposal, as the bird bath would be placed next to trees, where mourners had from time to time placed bird feeders. The deceased had been a great supporter of wildlife in general and birds in particular. The Deputy Chancellor decided in the particlar circumstances that it was appropriate to grant a faculty.