The vicar and churchwardens sought a faculty for repairs and overhaul of the church organ. The cost of the work was estimated at £135,000. There were two letters of objection, but the writers did not wish to be parties opponent. One objector disapproved of so much being spent on the church building compared to the amount spent on mission and growth. The second objector also considered that the amount to be spent on the organ could not be justified, when the organ was little used. The Chancellor granted a faculty: "In my judgment, issues relating to the cost of the works and the justification for spending money on the organ are primarily matters for the PCC, not for the Consistory Court."

The proposal was to replace the existing pipe organ with an electronic organ.  A letter of objection was received from a former organist at the church, who argued that the small instrument was ideal for the size of the church and, with minimal maintenance, had been working well for approximately 130 years; there was no reason why the organ should not continue to be effective for another 100 years; the life of an electronic organ, he claimed, rarely exceeds 20 years. The petitioners stated that the proposal to replace the pipe organ with an electronic organ was part of a long-term proposal to reorder the church. The advice of the organs adviser was that the organ had no historical importance, was tonally undistinguished and there were problems with the pedal boards. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the replacement of the pipe organ and he granted a faculty.

The Petitioners sought a faculty for the rebuilding and restoration of the organ in the nineteenth century Grade II listed church. An organs adviser from the Church Buildings Council advised against the planing of the pedal keys, the replacement of the ivories, and the stripping of the front pipes before their repainting. The Chancellor determined to grant a faculty for the proposed works, but without imposing the conditions recommended by the organs adviser.

Part way through a restoration program for the church organ (which was authorised by faculty in 2015), the organ builder had died and the dismantled organ had been moved to another organ builder for storage. The petitioners now wished to continue the restoration work and to return the organ in its previous position against the east wall of the south transept, with the addition of some digital stops, to improve the projection of musical sound into the nave. The British Institute of Organ Studies and the Church Buildings Council objected to the addition of digital stops to the early 19th century organ. However, the Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposed restoration and improvement works and he granted a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the disposal of the existing pipe organ and its replacement with an electronic organ. Although there were some written objections, the Chancellor took into account (inter alia): reports of the Diocesan Organs Advisor and an independent advisor that the pipe organ was of no great merit; the DAC recommending the proposal; the petitioners and PCC supporting the proposals; and the fact that the church is unlisted.

A faculty had been granted in 2021 ([2021] ECC New 1) for a major reordering to meet the church's needs and support its mission following its designation as a Resource Church. The present petition proposed the restoration of the Harrison & Harrison organ (which was no longer in a playable condition) in two phases over a period of ten years. One person objected on grounds of cost, but did not wish to become a party to the proceedings. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the first phase of the work to be completed within five years, with leave for the petitioner to apply in five years' time for an extension of the faculty to authorise the second phase.