In 2008, the church architect sought formal advice from the Diocesan Advisory Committee for internal redecoration of the church. A revised request for formal advice was submitted in 2011. The DAC issued a certificate (with provisos) in respect of "a single coat of lime wash to the interior of the church". Work started in 2013, although no faculty had been granted. By the beginning of 2017, the walls were discoloured with algae. The architect advised the PCC that any remedial work and repainting would be covered by the earlier faculty (which in fact did not exist). Repainting was carried out in 2017, but with white clay paint instead of lime wash. When it was discovered by the DAC Secretary that the work had been done without faculty, an application was made for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but criticised the architect for allowing work to proceed without first making sure that a faculty had been granted, and he directed that the architect should pay two-thirds of the court fees.

In 2009 the lead rainwater goods on the north side of the church were stolen and were replaced with like materials, which in turn were stolen in 2011. In 2012, in view of water ingress and damage to internal walls, the church sought approval for the immediate installation of GRP rainwater goods. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and English Heritage were unhappy about the use of GRP on a Grade I church. In July 2012 the Deputy Chancellor granted a temporary licence for GRP rainwater goods, subject to conditions. GRP rainwater goods were installed and the Church subsequently applied for a confirmatory faculty.The planning authority, SPAB and the Church Buildings Council objected to GRP. The Chancellor granted an interim faculty, allowing the GRP rainwater goods to remain for a further 5 years, after which they should be replaced with metal, if the general advice of the heritage bodies has not changed by the end of that period.

Petition for repairs to external stonework (ironstone) of a twelfth century church. Objections as to the extent of the proposed replacement of stone with stone from the same quarry as the original. Faculty granted.

A Faculty had been granted by the Archdeacon for repairs to the pink sandstone of the church tower using a local stone, as recommended by the architect. The architect had subsequently recommended a similar, Scottish stone, which would be cheaper. A director of the local quarry objected to the Scottish stone being used, on the grounds that the local stone was likely to be more suitable. The Chancellor determined that the Faculty should be amended to provide that the PCC might use either stone, subject to the condition that the PCC should consider (a) the advice from the Diocesan Advisory Committee that the Scottish stone might weather differently from the other stone on the building (b) the offer by the local quarry to match the price of Scottish stone and (c) the architect’s assessment as to whether the local stone would be acceptable for use at Great Ness.

The proposal was to protect the external walls of the chancel and the east wall of the nave, which are composed of rubble with field and flint stones and earth consolidated mortar, which is very soft, by applying lime rendering. The evidence was that the church stonework had been rendered until some time during the 19th century. Three alternative thicknesses of rendering were proposed. There was disagreement amongst the interested parties and advisers over which option should be chosen, and so the decision was left to the Chancellor. The  Chancellor granted a faculty to allow one of the thicker rendering options, subject to a condition that where the render met the stone of windows, doors, buttresses, etc., the render was to be feathered down to meet the stonework.

Faculty granted for repairs to tower louvres. One objector with reservations about the operation of the faculty system and as to the quality of works commissioned by the Parochial Church Council. Chancellor satisfied that the works were needed and that the proposed manner of performing them was appropriate

The church was in need of major repairs to the building and the drains. The Chancellor was content to approve the proposals, but highlighted that there was a major defect in the procedure, in that the public nnotice did not inform the public of the nature of the works but simply described the works as: ‘To undertake repairs and refurbishments in accordance with the Schedule of Works ref 1403A prepared by Jane Holt Architect 16.02.18 and accompanying drawings numbered…….’ The Chancellor required fresh public notices listing the main items of work proposed, but granted a interim faculty authorising the works to proceed, but with a requirement for the works to cease if any objection was received in response to the public notices.

The priest-in-charge and churchwardens sought a confirmatory faculty for replacement of the nave and chancel ceilings and partial redecoration of the interior of the church, including the reredos panels. The plaster used included synthetic fibres, rather than traditional horse hair, and a modern paint had been used instead of limewash. The Commissary General considered that there was some minor harm to the significance of the Grade II* building, but accepted the expert evidence that it would do more harm than good, in physical terms, to strip out the work and start again. She accordingly granted a confirmatory faculty, subject to a condition that the work done should be monitored and reported on annually by the church architect for a period of ten years.

The petition related to exterior stonework repairs to the south nave clerestory of the church, involving the replacement of one missing carved grotesque and eight eroded label stops. The theme for the carvings was to be pioneering women, the criteria for selection being: local connection, a weighting towards maths, the sciences, and engineering and also to include BAME representation within the group. The Chancellor considered that it was appropriate to allow the choices that had been made to represent women who had played a significant role in the advancement of science and human knowledge. He therefore granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to carry out works of repair to the parapet of the tower, by re-bedding masonry and laying new lead, and also repairs to the west window, which had suffered heavy erosion. There were no objections to the work on the parapet, but the Society for the Protection of Ancent Buiildings objected to the proposed work to the west window, saying that the amount of the proposed replacement stonework was excessive and without justification. The Chancellor took the view that the petitioners had established that far-reaching repairs were needed to the window and he accordingly granted a faculty.