Faculty Petition for various works to a redundant chapel vested in the Churches Conservation Trust and the adjoining chapelyard, including improved access within the chapelyard and into the chapel, various rainwater and foul water drainage improvements, the creation of a rubbish and recycling area, and the removal of the modern metal security gates from the entrance to the south porch and their replacement with the Victorian gates which previously hung there. There was one objector, whose objection was in respect of the replacement of the porch gates. Finding by the Chancellor that the gates, being part of the redundant chapel, were not within the Faculty Jurisdiction (though the chapelyard still was). Faculty granted for all the works.

A Faculty had been granted in 2013 for the felling of some trees in the churchyard. On the date when the contractors started work, an objection to the work was made on site, as a result of which the work was suspended. The faculty subsequently lapsed. A new petition was presented and the same objector wished to become a party opponent. The Chancellor issued directions dealing with, inter alia, (a) an allegation by the objector that the Chancellor should recuse himself; (b) an application by one of the petitioner's for an extension of time in order to respond to the objector's particulars of objection; and (c) the need for an arboricultural report. The Chancellor also directed that the Ancient Yew Group should be invited to comment on the proposals.

The petitioner's mother died in a motor accident in 2000. The petitioner's father had been in such a state of shock that he had left it to a family friend to arrange the funeral. Notwithstanding that the father and his three daughters were all atheists, the family friend arranged for burial in the consecrated churchyard at Charlwood. Each member of the family had never been happy with this and had only recently found it possible to discuss the matter together. They now wished the mother's body to be exhumed and cremated, and the ashes scattered elsewhere. The Deputy Chancellor considered the guiding principles laid down in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299 and concluded that this was an exceptional case where exhumation should be allowed: " ... I am persuaded that there was a fundamental mistake of intention in this case ... For a family of conscientious atheists, Christian burial was not the right choice. The daughters have tried very hard to honour and make sense of their mother’s memory through the medium of her grave, but they reached a point whereby the thing which should provide some solace was doing the opposite."

The petitioner (a churchwarden) wished to carry out repairs to three box tombs. There was one objector (who did not become a party opponent), who raised a number of issues, but the Chancellor did not regard the objections as grounds for refusing a faculty. A faculty was granted, subject to Historic England not making any representations within 28 days. If any representation were to be made, the matter was to be referred back to the Chancellor for further directions.

Interments of two family members had taken place in the same grave in 2012 and 2013. After the second interment there had been only a foot of earth over the second coffin, and in the course of time the second coffin had become exposed. An application was made for a faculty to authorise the exhumation of both coffins from the family grave and for re-interment of both coffins in the same grave in another part of the churchyard. The Chancellor determined that there were special circumstances to justify him permitting both coffins to be exhumed (even though the first coffin could have been left in situ with a sufficient covering of earth) and for them both to be re-interred in a new family grave.

The chancel of the church is only used for daily prayer and for fortnightly coffee mornings. The works proposed were the introduction of radiators and additional carpeting, to make the chancel more comfortable on the occasions when it is used. It was also proposed to create a new bell-ringing floor in the tower, in order to create a disabled toilet and kitchen at the base of the tower. There were letters of objection from two bell-ringers in respect of this item. The Chancellor decided that any impact on the bell-ringers should not outweigh the benefits of providing appropriate toilet and refreshment facilities. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The petitioner applied on behalf of her mother to have the cremated remains of her father exhumed from his burial plot and reinterred in another plot. Interments of cremated remains in the churchyard normally allowed for 18 inches of spacing between memorial plaques, so that visitors did not tread on memorials. At the time of the interment, the proximity of the petitioner's father's grave plot to neighbouring plots had been obscured by a green carpet laid over the neighbouring plots. It later became apparent that there was insufficient space to tend the plaque laid on the plot without stepping on neighbouring plaques, and there was evidence that the petitioner's father's plaque had been trodden on. This was very distressing for his widow. The Chancellor considered that the problem had arisen because of an unfortunate mistake as to spacing by those responsible for laying out the plots and he considered therefore that the granting of a faculty was justified.

The petitioner wished to install a kerbed memorial in the churchyard. The Chancellor granted a faculty (subject to conditions about the height of the kerbs) for the following reasons put forward by the family: the deceased had died young in tragic circumstances and a more substantial memorial was appropriate to mark her grave; the family particularly wished that kerbs would discourage people walking on the grave; there were already 16 kerbed memorials in the churchyard. Also, the parish priest had advised that the family had European heritage where there was a culture for more elaborate memorials and the inclusion of kerbing was part of that cultural heritage.

The cremated remains of a child who died within hours of a premature birth in the 1980s had been interred in the churchyard. The petitioners (the father of the child and his three daughters) wished to have the remains exhumed with a view to them being reinterred in the father's garden. The father's wife had expressed a wish before her death to be buried in the garden with the remains of her deceased child. The Chancellor could find no justification for allowing the exhumation and reinterment of the child's remains as proposed, but he granted a faculty authorising exhumation, provided that permission could be obtained for the remains of the child and both parents to be interred in the churchyard of the church where the mother's funeral had been conducted or in some other consecrated ground.

The petition sought permission for the following works in the Grade I listed church: the installation of toilets and the creation of a sound-proof meeting room with kitchen facilities in the north transept; the removal of the temporary kitchen at the east end of the south aisle; the creation of a reredos; the relocation of an altar in front of the reredos; and the creation of storage space behind the reredos. One matter of concern in this case was the proposal to level the floor of the Cowper Chapel in order to create an even floor for the proposed meeting room. However, the Chancellor granted a faculty for all the items as proposed.