The petitioners wished to replace the existing cast-iron sectional rainwater guttering of the church with continuous extruded black anodised aluminium, in order to prevent further water ingress to the church. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Building did not approve the use of aluminium. However, the Chancellor granmted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to erect in the churchyard a polished black headstone with gold lettering, in memory of his father. The PCC opposed the proposal, as they were trying to ensure that all new memorials fell within the CHurchyards Regulations. The DAC and Archdeacon were not in favour of the proposal. The Chancellor dismissed the petition and directed that the petitioner should pay the costs.

The petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of his father and reinter them in the same churchyard in the grave of his mother, who died after his father. Shortly before he died, the petitioner's father had told the petitioner that he wanted to be cremated. The petitioner's mother had expressed regret after her husband's death that she had been unable to persuade her husband to be buried, so that he could be buried in the same grave as herself. But the retired priest who carried out the interment of her husband's ashes had assured the mother that, when she was buried, it would be possible to put her husband's cremated remains into her grave. The petitioner was also reassured by either the priest or the funeral director, that there would be no problem. The Chancellor determined that there had been an innocent mistake on the part of the retired priest, and further that there was a misunderstanding by all the family, amounting to a mistake, as to what they could or could not do. He therefore decided that there were special circumstances in this case to justify allowing the exhumation and reinterment.

The Vicar and Churchwardens wished to remove the existing damaged stone font from the front of the church and replace it with a new portable font incorporating the stainless steel bowl and cover from the old font. The reasons for the proposal were, firstly, to be able to place the font in a better position than the old font for baptism services, where there would be better sight-lines, and secondly to be able to move the font out of the way when the space at the front of the church was required for large services, concerts and other events. A small number of parishioners objected to the proposals, but did not become parties opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the replacement of the old font, on condition that the new font should stand in the same position as the old font, except when it needed to be moved for special services and events.

The petitioner sought retrospective permission for the introduction of concrete kerbs and pebbles to the grave of her parents. The kerbs and pebbles had been installed by the family without prior consultation. The Parochial Church Council ('PCC') objected to the kerbs and pebbles, which fell outside the churchyards regulations and would give rise to maintenance problems. Although the petitioner pointed out that there were already a few graves with kerbs in the churchyard, the PCC stated that no kerbs had been installed in the churchyard for at least 60 years, and the PCC did not wish a new precedent to be created by allowing the kerbs and pebbles to remain. The Deputy Chancellor refused to grant a confirmatory faculty and ordered that the kerbs and pebbles should be removed.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the disposal of the existing pipe organ and its replacement with an electronic organ. Although there were some written objections, the Chancellor took into account (inter alia): reports of the Diocesan Organs Advisor and an independent advisor that the pipe organ was of no great merit; the DAC recommending the proposal; the petitioners and PCC supporting the proposals; and the fact that the church is unlisted.

The proposals were for a major reordering. The controversial items were: replacement of the pews and pew platforms with chairs; creation of a flexible space within the nave to allow the building to be used as a
place of worship and church hall; and replacement of the existing organ with an electronic organ. The main intention of the proposals was to allow more flexible use of the church for community use. The Chancellor concluded that the petitioners had proved a necessity for the re-ordering, and he therefore granted a faculty.

The Vicar and a churchwarden applied for a faculty to authorise retrospectively the laying flat in the churchyard of 51 memorials which had been found to be unstable in 2015 and also to authorise the laying flat of memorial stones deemed to be unstable by a future inspection. There had been much disquiet locally about the laying flat of so many memorials in 2015, and the Chancellor was concerned that there had not been adequate notification to families who might have been contacted prior to the laying down of the memorials. However, he granted a faculty, subject to a condition that in future no memorial should be laid flat without the express approval of the Archdeacon.

The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for restoration work to the rood screen and reredos.

The Chancellor had to consider the question as to whether, in the absence of a bishop during a vacancy in see, he could authorise the installation of an aumbry in the church. After considering the law and current practice, he determined that he could. Accordingly, a faculty was granted.