The Chancellor declined to allow the addition of an inscription on a floor tile in the sanctuary of the church in memory of a former parish clerk, but instead allowed a memorial to be placed on the wall at the west end of the nave, opposite a plaque in memory of another former parish clerk.

The petitioners sought a faculty to remove four pews from the west end of the nave beneath the gallery, the doors and panelling to be salvaged for reuse; to introduce a new disabled accessible WC into the north-west corner, new cupboards into the south-west corner, and a kitchen into the base of the tower; to introduce a new upper floor into the tower with a balustrade to the west window and a new access door in the tower arch partition; to introduce a new foul drainage system on the site of the former underground boiler-house in the north-west re-entrant angle; and to reduce the base of the font by removing one step. The Georgian Group became a party opponent, objecting to the removal of some box pews to allow a disabled toilet to be built. The Chancellor granted a faculty: " ... although there will be a small loss to this historical and architectural heritage asset, the loss will be far outweighed by the benefit to the community."

The proposal was to install heated pew runners to all pews. There were four objectors, who did not wish to become parties opponent. The Chancellor found no substance in the objections and granted a faculty.

The proposals were to create an accessible lean-to WC to the north of the nave with access from inside the church via the north door, and a tea-point at the west end of the south aisle. The installation of the tea point would require the shortening of four pews and one pew frontal. Historic England was opposed to the shortening of the ancient pews, but did not become a party opponent. The Chancellor decided to grant a faculty, being satisfied that only modest harm would be caused to the character of the building and that such harm as would be caused by the works would be more than outweighed by the resulting improvements to the way in which the church could be used for worship and mission.

Various items of re-ordering were proposed. The Victorian Society objected to the extension and alteration of the porch to provide a disabled access toilet (a new entrance lobby to be created). A parishioner objected to the proposed cupboards for the south transept and the placing of an altar at the southern end of the St. Thomas's Chapel in the south transept. Neither the Victorian Society nor the parishioner became a party opponent. Faculty granted.

The petitioners sought permission to install an automatic winding mechanism and automatic regulation in the tower clock of the Grade II* church. Following a risk assessment, manual winding had been suspended in the interests of safety until a safer option could be found. The author of the risk assessment felt that the winding could be made reasonably safe at a much cheaper cost than automatic winding. Two other parishioners felt that manual winding could be made safe, but the Parochial Church Council were unanimous about automatic winding. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He was satisfied that "The automatic winding mechanism is a reasonable response to the risks which have been identified, and it is for the PCC to decide what sums they wish to spend on meeting those risks ..."

The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for the introduction of a new single lancet stained glass window, to replace an existing plain glass window, in commemoration of the church's 300 years anniversary in 2016 and in memory of the son of the donors of the window, being satisfied that both the design and the memorial inscriptions were appropriate; that the new window would complement an existing modern stained glass window within the same north elevation of the church; and that it would not result in any harm to the significance of the Grade II church as a building of special architectural or historic interest.

The Vicar and Churchwardens sought authority to conduct a survey of, firstly, the area of churchyard added in 1926 and currently in use and, secondly, the older part of the churchyard, in order to ascertain by rodding where further burials could take place, including burials in the older part of the churchyard over existing graves. A neighbour, whose house windows looked out directly on to the older part of the churchyard, objected to its re-use and the possible disturbance of existing graves, stating that interments carried out near his windows would be distressing and affect his enjoyment of his property. He claimed that such re-use would amount to a nuisance and also blight his property. The Deputy Chancellor determined that the PCC were legally entitled to re-use old burial ground until such time as the churchyard was formally closed, and that such re-use would not amount in law to a nuisance. A faculty was granted.

The petitioners wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard of Hulme Walfield. They did not live in the parish. In Schedule 2 of the petition it was indicated that the incumbent and Churchwardens did not consent to the reservation. The Chancellor declined to grant a faculty on the basis that a burial of a non-parishioner could only take place with the consent of the incumbent, who should have regard to any general guidance given by the PCC (s 6(2) of the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 1976). So to grant a faculty would be to subvert the purpose of Section 6(2) of the 1976 measure, since the reservation of a grave by faculty would override the minister’s power to give or withhold consent to the eventual burial of non-parishioners.

The petition proposed the addition of three names said to have been omitted from the First World War Memorial in Langtoft. In his judgment, the Chancellor set out the criteria he would apply in this or any future similar application: (1) if the name was recorded on a war memorial elsewhere, the presumption would be that the family had chosen to have the name recorded in the other place; (2) if the name was not recorded elsewhere, the Chancellor would have to decide, on a balance of probabilimemties, if the omission was a mistake. In the present case, two of the names were recorded elsewhere. The third name was the same as one already on the war memorial, but alleged to be a different person. The Chancellor was not satisfied that the the third name related to a different person from the one whose name was already on the memorial. He therefore decided not to grant a faculty authorising any of the names to be added to the memorial.