Several items of internal reordering were proposed, in order to provide a flexible space for worship and for a variety of uses, both for the church community and wider community. The most significant item of reordering was the proposal to replace the nave pews with chairs. The chair proposed was the Alpha high stacking lightweight upholstered chair. Notwithstanding the advice of the Church Buildings Council that chairs should not be upholstered, the Chancellor granted a faculty for the proposed chairs, as well as for the other items referred to in the petition.

The petitioner requested permission for a memorial in the form of a small York Stone boulder with a slate plaque on its front face, in memory of her late husband. The memorial was ostensibly outside the churchyard regulations and the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not approve it. After considering the principles to be applied when deciding whether to allow a memorial outside the regulations, the Chancellor decided that this was an appropriate case in which he should grant a faculty.

The Rector and Churchwardens wished to replace the lead on the south aisle and vestry roofs with terne-coated stainless steel. The Church had suffered from lead thefts in the past and already had a terne-coated steel roof over the north porch. The remaining lead had been repaired a number of times in recent years and was regarded as having reached the end of its serviceable life after 100 years. Historic England objected to terne-coated steel, and took the view that the lead should be replaced with lead. Historic England's own advice in its booklet ‘Metal Thefts from Historic Buildings’ suggested that stainless steel was a suitable alternative to lead, where there had been lead theft and repeated attacks. The Deputy Chancellor determined that the Petitioners have shown good reason for the replacement of lead with terne-coated stainless steel, and he granted a faculty.

The petitioner sought permission to add kerbs and chippings to a memorial on an existing grave. The reasons given were: (1) the petitioner wished to have the name of his late wife and in due time the names of his brother and himself recorded on the grave, there being insufficient space on the existing memorial; (2) chippings secured by kerbs would eliminate or minimise recent invasive damage from moles; (3) there was a precedent for kerbs and chippings on neighbouring graves. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty, but indicated that he would look favourably on an application for a faculty to replace the existing stone with a larger stone which would have room for additional names.

The Vicar and Churchwardens wished to move a memorial from inside the church to the County Museum next door to the church and erect a replacement memorial in the church. The reasons for the proposal were, firstly, concern that, in the current social climate,  the wording of the original memorial might offend some visitors to the church, as it referred to the person commemorated - John Gordon, a plantation overseer (and later owner) in Jamaica - who repulsed a rebellion of 'a large body of negroes' in Jamaica in 1760; secondly, that the continued presence of the memorial in the church would be harmful to the mission and message of today’s church. Some consultees favoured removal of the memorial, some favoured retention with interpretative material. The Chancellor determined that in this case the public benefit to be derived from the removal of the memorial, subject to its replacement with a memorial omitting details which might cause offence, would outweigh the harm caused.

A widow had reserved by Faculty a grave next to the grave of her late husband. By mistake someone else was buried in the grave reserved by the widow. Faculty granted to the widow for exhumation of the remains of her husband, and reinterment in another part of the churchyard and reservation for her of a grave next to her late husband's new grave.

The petitioners sought a faculty to authorise the movement of the altar westwards by 60cm to increase the amount of space behind the altar for celebrating the Eucharist. Applying the tests laid down in Re St Alkmund’s Duffield [2013], the Deputy Chancellor took the view that the proposals would not cause any harm to the church as a building of special architectural and historic significance, and accordingly granted a faculty.

The petitioner's mother died in 1993, having expressed a wish to be cremated, and her remains were interred in the area set aside for cremated remains in Edgmond churchyard. The Petitioner's father died in 2016, having expressed a wish to be buried near to the remains of his wife, and his body was interred in another part of the same churchyard. The petitioner and his sisters wished to have the cremated remains of their mother exhumed and reinterred in their father's grave, so that both parents' remains would be together in a family grave. The Chancellor considered this an appropriate case in which to grant a faculty, as it was a case where "there is a proper and understandable proposal to reunite the remains of husband and wife in one plot in the same churchyard as currently contains those remains in separate plots".

In 2021 one of the tower pinnacles had fallen in a storm, and in 2022 the remaining three pinnacles had been found to be unsafe and had been removed under an interim faculty. A confirmatory faculty was grated in 2023, with a condition that the pinnacles be restored within 3 years, though that condition had been omitted from the faculty. The Parochial Church Council objected to the condition. The Court decided to stay the condition, pending further discussion with the interested parties. Historic England, the Church Buildings Council and the Telford and Wrekin Council all objected to the permanent removal of the pinnacles from the Grade I listed building. The Chancellor decided to reinstate the condition that the pinnacles should be restored within a given period, but changed the period to 5 years. Whilst raising the necessary funds might be difficult, “Listing does not relate to practicality or utility, but to matters like historical and aesthetic value.  Listed buildings are typically expensive to maintain by reason of their antiquity and merit”.

Faculty sought for exhumation of husband's remains from grave in Norfolk and reinterment in a grave in Co. Atrim, the widow petitioner and her daughter having had to move, "for financial reasons" to live near their family in Co. Antrim. Faculty refused, the Chancellor being unable to find sufficient justification to grant a Faculty within the guidelines set out in the Court of Arches decision in Re Blagdon.