Reordering proposals included: a glazed entrance lobby; a welcome area; a room for a crèche during services; a meeting room; a kitchen; and toilets. The works involved moving the rood screen and the font. The main area of contention was the moving of the rood screen, which was a war memorial. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

Following a major extension and radical reordering of the church in 1973, a “bold stainless steel font … surmounted by a dove” was introduced into the church. The nineteenth century font was placed outside the church and used as a plant holder. In recent years its condition had seriously deteriorated and in 2022 it had been brought back into the church and its parts had been stored on wooden pallets behind a pew. Having considered various options for the font, the petitioners had decided that burial of the font in the churchyard was the best option. The Church Building Council, Historic England and the Victorian Society did not support the proposal. The Chancellor considered that the redesigned interior of the church had made the retention of the older font no longer practical or desirable, and after considering all other options she concluded that there was no viable alternative other than to allow the burial of the font in the churchyard.

The proposals included the removal of two pews from the west end of the Grade II church and four from the north aisle, and the reduction in width of a further pew. The reasons for the proposals were to create: (a) a more useable space for a growing number of young families; (b) an area where some of the congregation can sit and enjoy refreshments after a service; (c) an area close to the main entrance which can accommodate noticeboards on which to communicate information; and (d) an area where a wheelchair can be positioned which is not at the rear of the church. Faculty granted.

The church, formerly a church hall built in 1898, became a parish church after the original church was demolished in about 1992. The proposal was to convert the existing gentlemen’s toilet block, to the north of the altar, into an office and to rebuild the ladies’ toilets, on the south side of the altar and adjoining a private house, as four unisex toilets, including one with wheelchair access. The neighbours at the adjoining house wrote a letter of objection, their main objection being noise disturbance. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but imposed a condition that the petitioners should reverse the locations of the ladies’ toilets and the new office, if possible, but, if this was not practicable, they should use their reasonable endeavours to introduce acoustic insulation to the party wall between the church building and the objectors’ home.

The petitioner wished to replace a memorial stone commemorating one parent with a new black granite stone commemorating both parents, the second parent having died recently. The parish priest and Parochial Church Council objected, as the specification was outside the diocesan churchyards regulations, notwithstanding that there were several black granite memorials already in the churchyard. The Chancellor granted a faculty on the basis that it would be unreasonable and discriminatory towards the family concerned if a faculty were refused when there were already so many black granite memorials in the churchyard.

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.