Several items of reordering were proposed. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Victorian Society (though not formal parties to the proceedings) objected to the design of the new access on the north side of the church, the proposed quartz heaters and the replacement of the pews with chairs.  The Chancellor was satisfied that the benefit of the changes would outweigh any harm to the church and he granted a faculty.

The Parochial Church Council wished to restore and retune the church's eight bells. The Church Buildings Council ('CBC') opposed the retuning of the 6th bell, as it was thought to predate 1600, and was therefore on the CBC's list of bells which should be preserved because of their historical importance. The evidence was that the 6th bell had already had modifications made to it in 1907, and had been badly retuned at that time; also, the retuning would involve the shaving of only a minimal amount of metal from the inner surface of the bell. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to have erected on her husband's grave a headstone including the design of three stylised heraldic lions, as her husband had a tattoo of three lions. The Chancellor was concerned that the design of the lions was similar to part of the Royal Arms of England, and to the three lions design licensed by the Crown to be used by the England football and cricket teams. In the absence of permission from the Crown to use the design, the Chancellor refused to permit the design on the headstone. However, he did permit the inscription on the headstone to include the deceased's nickname and the words 'Husband, Dad and Grandad'.

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.