The church had been declared redundant in 2001 and in 2004 a lease for 99 years had been granted to a charity. The charity applied for a faculty to lay a foul drain through the  churchyard to take the waste from a disabled toilet which was to be installed in the church, to serve the needs of people attending the church for community events. A party opponent objected on the grounds that there was little need for community events in the church, that  the funds needed for the project could be better spent elsewhere, and that the village sewerage system was already stretched to the limit. The petitioners argued that, as the church had been used only twelve times in the previous year, the toilet usage would not overload the sewerage system. The Chancellor noted that the local authority had approved the proposal, and was therefore presumed not to be concerned about the laying of an additional drain in the village. Also, it was believed that there were no burials in the churchyard which would be affected by the laying of the drain. The Chancellor therefore granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to erect a memorial on the grave of two family members. The Incumbent, churchwardens and PCC did not support the application. The Chancellor granted a faculty. The judgment includes a discussion of two subsidiary issues: (1) do the petitioners need to show some exceptional reason for the proposed memorial; and (2) is it open to the Diocesan Advisory Committee to change the advice it proffers to the parties and to the Chancellor and, if so, in what circumstances?

The priest in charge and churchwardens petitioned for a faculty to permit reordering works, including the provision of kitchen servery and toilet facilities, a renewed heating system and the removal of some pews to create a more flexible space in the church, in order to advance the church's worship and mission. Notwithstanding concerns of the Victorian Society and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty, being satisfied that any harm to the significance of the church was likely to be outweighed by the public benefits to be generated as a result of the proposals.

The Chancellor granted a faculty allowing a blue plaque to be placed on the outside of the church to commemorate Gordon Welchman, who had played a significant role in code-breaking at Bletchley Park during the Second World War, and whose father had been Vicar of the Parish.

A faculty was sought to allow an extension to the existing churchyard path, in order to facilitate access to an existing wooden bench in wet weather when the ground becomes very wet. There was one objection. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for an extension to the church to provide a Church Room, Historic England and the Victorian Society having indicated that they had no objections to the proposal.

Reordering proposals included replacing the church pews with chairs, new audio-visual equipment, moving the font, an accessible WC, a kitchenette, storage and blue carpet runners. The petitioners' objective was to make the church more suitable for church and community events, to try and increase the church's income, in order to raise money for repairs to the roof. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the proposals. There were no objections in response to public notices, but all the amenity societies consulted (though none became parties opponent) objected to metal framed upholstered chairs. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the works and granted a faculty for all the works, subject to the replacement chairs being made of wood, in accordance with the guidelines of the Church Buildings Council.

The petitioner wished to install an upright memorial over the single plot in the churchyard where the cremated remains of both her parents had been interred. The Parochial Church Council ("PCC") objected (inter alia) that the upright memorial would not be in keeping with other ashes plots in the row, where the memorials were laid flush with the ground or desk shaped, and it would set a precedent for others. Nine local residents (all but one of whom were members of the PCC) submitted letters of objection for similar reasons. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the proposal. For several reasons (too many to be listed in this brief summary) the Chancellor granted a faculty.

The associate minister and a churchwarden wished to remove from the churchyard two cedar trees, which were situated within 2 metres of the northern wall of a plant room, adjacent to the vestry.   In recent years the trees have been causing problems, dropping a large amount of debris on the roof on the north side of the church, choking gutters and downpipes, and causing rainwater to cascade down the wall. The quinquennial inspection report had advised removal of the trees due to the rainwater issues and also damage caused by tree roots. A couple whlo lived in the parish submitted a letter of objection. The local authority had agreed to the two trees being removed (the churchyard being in a conservation area), subject to two replacement trees being planted in the churchyard. The Chancellor found that there was a convincing case for the removal of the trees and granted a faculty.

The petition sought permission for the filming inside the church of a scene for a film entitled ‘28 Years Later’, portraying “a post-apocalyptic world in which people are largely infected by a ‘rage’ virus which leads them to violence”. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend approval of the proposal and one member of the Parochial Church Council objected, but did not become a party opponent. The Chancellor considered Canon F15, “Of churches not to be profaned” and Canon F16, “Of plays, concerts and exhibitions of films and pictures in churches”. He also considered advice given in the Diocese of London concerning the use of churches for filming. He concluded that the scene to be filmed would be “intrinsically objectionable” and that “it would be inappropriate to permit it to take place.” He therefore refused to grant a faculty. There is an appendix to the judgment regarding the costs of the proceedings.