The petitioners applied for a confirmatory faculty in respect of a memorial placed in the churchyard without permission. The Chancellor refused to grant a confirmatory faculty and granted a faculty for its removal by the team Vicar and churchwardens on the grounds that: (1) the installation without authority was a trespass; (2) the type of stone and colour of lettering were not authorised by the churchyards regulations; (3) part of the inscription (which suggested that a particular cancer treatment was responsible for the death of the person commemorated) was inappropriate; (4) there were concerns for safety, as the memorial was not installed by a member of the National Association of Memorial Masons; and (5)  'Allowing the memorial to remain fails to address the unfairness to others who correctly obtain appropriate authority and follow the Regulations'.

The petition sought permission for the introduction into the church of 150 new upholstered chairs of mixed colours - 65 white, 65 light blue, 10 pink and 10 lavender. The chairs had in fact already been installed, the petitioners having felt under pressure to install them before a visit by the Bishop to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the consecration of the church, and replying on a recommendation of the Diocesan Advisory Committee. The Church Buildings Council did not favour upholstered chairs, nor multiple colours, if upholstery were allowed. The Chancellor determined that there was no convincing need for more than one colour, but bearing in mind that the majority of the chairs were in the two muted colours of white and light blue, and had been purchased at considerable expense, he granted a faculty for the white and blue chairs to remain, but directed that the brighter-coloured chairs (10 pink and 10 lavender) should be removed from the church.

The petition proposed: 'Conversion of the altar table in the Lady Chapel to serve also as a chest of drawers suitable for storage of vestments.  Four oak faced panels applied from behind the existing table frames and stretchers will cover the front and ends of the table to ensure that the drawers will not be visible on the infrequent occasions when the altar is stripped'. The Chancellor determined that the conversion of the altar into a chest of drawers would be in breach of Canon F2, which requires that 'The table, as becomes the table of the Lord, shall be kept in a sufficient and seemly manner ...' He therefore refused to grant a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the installation of an electronic bird deterrent, in order to discourage pigeons from nesting in the north porch of the church and fouling the stonework. The deterrent consists of wires laid into a rubberised strip, which gives a mild electric shock to birds landing on it. The judgment contains a discussion of the relevant legislation relating to the protection of wildlife.

The petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of her mother and reinter them in the same churchyard with the remains of her father. It had been intended that the plot into which the petitioner's mother's remains had been interred should have been a double grave, but when the petitioner's father died it was found to be impossible to add the father's remains to the grave, due to insufficient depth. Also, the grave could not be enlarged due to concrete obstructions. Therefore the petitioner's father's remains had to be put in a nearby grave. The Chancellor considered that a mistake had been made, in that those digging the mother's grave should have been aware that a double plot was required and that the plot itself was not suitable for a double interment. He therefore granted a faculty of the exhumation of the mother's remains and their reinterment in the grave of her husband.

Faculty granted for the sale to the National Maritime Museum of two flags taken from the Battle of Trafalgar, one a Union Flag from HMS Minotaur, the other an Austrian ensign believed to have been taken from the Spanish ship Neptuno.

The petitioners wished to erect an octagonal extension with a link to the existing north door of the church to provide facilities for a clergy vestry, a meeting room with mezzanine, 2 WCs (including one for disabled), a kitchenette, choir robe store and general storage. This would involve building over graves and the moving of four upright stones and four kerb sets. Objections were received from six people whose family graves would be affected by the proposals. Faculty granted. Chancellor: "... in my judgment the petitioners have demonstrated a clear need for the proposed extension and I am satisfied from all the information available that the nature, design and location of the building are all entirely appropriate and fulfil the intended purpose. It is a matter of regret that established grave sites and markers will be affected by the erection of the new building, but I have reached the conclusion that the proposed extension is necessary if the mission and functioning of the church is to be maintained and developed and that the benefits for the church and for all who use it outweigh the adverse impact on the grave sites."

The petitioners proposed the creation of a social space, including a kitchen hub, at the west end of the south aisle of the church. Which is the most modern part of the Grade I Norman church. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the works did not impact the historical and architectural significance of the church building.

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.