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.

As part of a scheme of reordering in 2011-2012, 30 red-upholstered chairs with black metal frames were introduced into the Lady Chapel of the Grade II* church without faculty consent. These chairs were quite different from the chairs specified by the architect, on the basis of which the Diocesan Advisory Committee issued a certificate that it did not object to the works in the Lady Chapel. The churchwardens subsequently applied for a retrospective faculty to authorise the 30 chairs. The amenity societies consulted were strongly opposed to the chairs. The Chancellor was of the opinion that the chairs were "incongruous and aesthetically inappropriate in and to the setting of this medieval Grade II* listed building". However, he granted a faculty for the chairs, but subject to a condition that within 5 years the petitioners should apply for a further faculty for "suitable and appropriate replacement chairs which respect the interior and significance of this Grade II* listed church".

The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of his late wife, who died in 2013, exhumed from the churchyard at Barnby Dun, in South Yorkshire, and re-interred in Littlehampton Cemetery, in West Sussex. The petitioner and his two sons lived in West Sussex, and considered it to have been a mistake for the deceased's remains to have been buried in Barnby Dun, close to the remains of her parents. Also, one of the petitioner's sons, who was very close to his mother, suffered from severe physical disabilities, and was unable to visit his mother's grave 250 miles away without support. Following the test for exceptionality suggested by the Chancery Court of York in Re Christ Church Alsager [1998] 3 WLR 1394 -  "Is there a good and proper reason for exhumation, that reason being likely to be regarded as acceptable by right thinking members of the Church at large?" - the Chancellor decided that this  was an exceptional case which justified the grant of a faculty for exhumation.

The proposals were to install a drop-down screen behind the chancel arch, and also install a digital projector in a Grade I listed church. There were four objectors, but none wished to be a party to the proceedings. Re St. Alkmund Duffield considered. Faculty granted.