Proposals for reordering included: replacement flooring;  replacement heating scheme and underfloor heating; replacement of nave pews with chairs; removal of the side chapel platform and communion rail; construction of a dais or platform with a removable communion rail; removal of the pulpit and the choir stalls;  provision of a ramped access to the chancel and the vestry; replacement of the audio-visual installation. There were several objections, principally to the removal of the pulpit and choir stalls in the chancel. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners have provided compelling evidence of need to justify the grant of a faculty for the major reordering.

Re St. Thomas Charlton [2017] ECC Win 2 The petitioners wished to install an audio visual system in the body of the unlisted church, with a motorised screen located behind the chancel arch, a projector mounted on a roof cross beam and cabling to the rear of the church to a control location. There were two written objections on the grounds that (a) the equipment would be intrusive, and (b) the PCC could not afford the cost of the works. The Chancellor considered that the benefit of improved communication technology being introduced outweighed the general presumption that change should not be permitted. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave space next to the grave of her son, who had died in an accident aged 28 in 2022, so that the remains of members of the family who could not be buried in her son's grave could be buried in the grave next to his. The Parochial Church Council voted not to support the grave reservation. Whilst understanding the petitioner's desire to reserve a grave next to her son's, the Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for a number of reasons as set out in the judgment, including that the petitioner's son's grave (which was triple-depth) had further capacity for burials and interments of ashes; other family members were buried in various parts of the churchyard 9and here was capacity for further interments in some of them); the churchyard had capacity for burials for many years to come; and the reservation would set a precedent which would hamper the fair management of the churchyard.

The petitioners wished to carry out some reordering works inside and outside the church, so that the church could be used for retreats and quiet days. The main item at issue was a proposed platform to be erected in a piece of woodland at the end of the churchyard. (The woodland had formerly been glebe, but had been added to the churchyard some years previously.) The petitioners proposed to use the platform as a base for a temporary structure, such as a tent or a gazebo, whilst conducting retreats. The Chancellor refused to allow the platform, but granted a faculty for all the other items in the petition.

The petitioners sought to replace certain pews with upholstered chairs in a Grade II listed church. Applying the tests in Re St. Alkmund Duffield, the Chancellor determined that there was clear and convincing justification for carrying out the proposals and that any harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest would be minor. Faculty granted.

The main issue was a proposal to sell two paintings which had been stored in the church for some years. The Church Buildings Council advised against sale of the two paintings, which were nineteenth century and of religious subjects, on the grounds of their connection with the church and their religious subject-matter. A professional valuation had put a value of £125-£150 on each painting. The Chancellor determined to grant a faculty for the sale. The paintings had been stored several years and were deteriorating and were unlikely to be displayed again, the connection with the church was tenuous and the paintings were of very modest value.

A major reordering was proposed in order to accommodate a huge increase in use of the church following its designation as new Resource Church. The proposed works included replacement of pews with chairs, creation of meeting rooms in the galleries, facilities for hospitality, and a baptistry for full immersion. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the works were necessary to meet the church's needs and support its mission, and that  the needs outweighed the consequential loss of special architectural and/or historic interest that would necessarily follow.

A faculty had been granted in 2021 ([2021] ECC New 1) for a major reordering to meet the church's needs and support its mission following its designation as a Resource Church. The present petition proposed the restoration of the Harrison & Harrison organ (which was no longer in a playable condition) in two phases over a period of ten years. One person objected on grounds of cost, but did not wish to become a party to the proceedings. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the first phase of the work to be completed within five years, with leave for the petitioner to apply in five years' time for an extension of the faculty to authorise the second phase.

The church, which is listed Grade I, dates back to the 14th century, but the current layout is Victorian. The proposals included removal of the screens on either side of the chancel steps and their relocation on the east wall of the church, adjacent to the high altar and slightly behind the riddle posts, as well as some alterations to the choir stalls. The Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits of the proposals - allowing the congregation to engage more with the Eucharist, due to improved sight lines, and greater flexibility of use for the reordered space - would outweigh what he considered to be a low degree of harm to the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest, and he granted a faculty.

The petition proposed a substantial reordering, to include: replacement of the remaining pews and some green upholstered chairs with metal framed chairs upholstered in neutral-coloured fabric; the lowering of the timber pew platforms to create a level floor in the nave; the removal of some of the chancel furniture; new lighting and audio-visual equipment; and various repairs. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the items, but was not prepared for the lectern and reader's desk to be removed, being part of the church's set of liturgical furniture. He also required that once the worn carpet on the chancel step had been removed, the step should remain uncovered.