A large scheme of reordering was proposed, with the aim of improving the experience of worship and also creating flexible spaces at the front and rear of the nave to facilitate increasing community events. There were objections to (inter alia) the relocation of the chancel screen to beneath the east window and the removal of some pews (which were said by the Twentieth Century Society to be part of the works carried out by Sir Ninian Comper in 1915); the division of the twentieth century lectern/priest’s desk designed by the architect George Pace; and the relocation of the pulpit. The Chancellor decided that the proposed changes were well argued, and she therefore granted a faculty.

Faculty for exhumation granted, due to exceptional circumstances (following guidance in Re Blagdon), namely, medical reasons.

Various items of reordering of the church were proposed. Several concerns and objections had been expressed by the statutory consultees, and revisions to the plans had been made. The Chancellor granted a faculty based on the revised proposals. The judgment contains some advice to petitioners in general concerning adequate consultation with the statutory consultees and the preparation of clear plans and specifications, particularly where plans and specifications have been amended.

The proposal was to install a buried LPG tank in the churchyard, with pipes leading to the church building. This was intended to power an LPG boiler, which would in turn power the new underfloor heating system which formed part of the works authorised by a Faculty granted in 2023. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had considered with some care the Church of England’s guidance towards achieving net zero and she accordingly granted a faculty. 

In 2000 the petitioner's mother died and, in accordance with a wish expressed in her will, her body was interred in a double-depth grave in Stoneleigh churchyard. In 2021 the petitioner's mother's partner died and his body was interred, in accordance with a wish in his own will, in the same grave. The petitioner now applied for her mother's partner's body to be exhumed and reinterred elsewhere, so that the petitioner could be buried in the same grave as her mother in due course. The reason given for the proposal by the petitioner (but without supporting evidence) was that by 2000 the relationship between her mother and her mother's partner had ‘just about ceased’ and there had been an understanding that the petitioner would be buried with her mother. The Chancellor determined that there had been nothing unlawful in the burial of the partner and the petitioner had shown no exceptional circumstances to justify an exhumation.

The priest in charge, a churchwarden and the Chairman of the Tutbury War Memorials Preservation Committee petitioned for a faculty to place two metal wreath holders near to the war memorial in the churchyard. Historic England and the Parish Council objected, the former becoming a party opponent. Historic England felt that the proposed structures were not of sufficient aesthetic merit for the churchyard of the Grade I listed church. The Chancellor, however, was satisfied that what was proposed was of an appropriate quality, and accordingly he granted a faculty.

The proposal was to install telecommunications antennae in the Grade I church and to enter into an agreement with the telecommunications contractor. Two parishioners objected, on the grounds that people could suffer from harmful radiation, but they did not wish to become parties opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty. Referring to the Court of Arches judgment in Re Emmanuel Church, Bentley [2006] 1 Fam 39, he pointed out that, where the Government set the permitted levels of radiation as a prerequisite of planning consent, it would be wrong for the consistory courts to apply lower guidelines.

The original gas boiler of the 1950s unlisted church had failed, been condemned as unsafe and removed. The Parochial Church Council wished to install a new heating system with new pipework and radiators and using a new gas boiler. The Church of England had a policy that its buildings should achieve net carbon neutrality by 2030. The Diocese of Southwark had a target of 2035. These policies suggested that churches should replace old gas heating systems with 'green' alternatives. However, in the present case the Chancellor decided that it would be unreasonable not to allow the present proposal and he therefore granted a faculty.

The proposal was to repair a 19th century stained glass window in the north wall of the nave and install a window guard. The Church Buildings Council raised an issue about two figurative panels in the window, which they thought might be pre-Victorian. The Chancellor was satisfied from the evidence that all the glass in the window was Victorian, and he granted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to have a cross and a Star of David on a memorial to her late husband, who had been brought up in the Jewish Jew, but who had later adopted the Christian faith. The Chancellor considered two previous decisions of consistory courts in other dioceses: in the one case, where permission was given on the grounds of exceptional circumstances, and the other, where permission was not given because the Chancellor decided that there were no exceptional circumstances. The Chancellor in the present case decided to grant a faculty. He considered that the cross and the Star of David recognised the Jewish tradition and subsequent Christian faith of the deceased and also, when the petitioner was in due time interred in the same grave, the two symbols would represent their separate religions. However, the Chancellor made it clear that a Star of David should only be permitted for good and sufficient reasons and should always be the subject of a faculty application.