The Chancellor, taking into account the guidance in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002], determined that there were special reasons for permitting exhumation and reinterment. The cremated remains of the father of the three petitioning children had been buried in a parish churchyard. At the time it was intended that his wife's cremated remains should be placed with his. When his wife died, the children found that her will said that she wished to be buried in a family grave in a cemetery. They mistakenly felt obliged to comply with the terms of the will, but this defeated the original intention of the mother and the father to be buried together. After the second burial the children regretted not having buried their parents together and made a fairly prompt application to rectify the situation. Accordingly, the Chancellor allowed the cremated remains of the father to be exhumed and reinterred in the family grave in the cemetery.

The Chancellor found that there were special circumstances (as set out in the judgment) which justified him in granting a faculty for exhumation and reinterment in the same churchyard. The petitioner wished to move the cremated remains of his father to the grave of his mother, who had died recently and who had expressed a wish before her death to have her body buried and for her husband's cremated remains to be moved into the same grave, not realising that there could be difficulties in carrying out her wishes.

The petitioners' proposals included: the creation of a draught lobby in the church porch with new screening, glass doors and stepless access; a second toilet, accessible to the disabled; removal of some pews; alteration of the children's pews; and some electrical and heating works. Historic England and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings were concerned about the impact of the proposed porch screen on the building's significance and special interest. However, the Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made out a good case for the proposals and he granted a faculty.

A couple who had lived in the village for 46 years each applied to reserve a grave space. The Parochial Church Council did not support the applications, as they had previously adopted and applied a policy of not supporting the reservation of grave spaces in view of the limited number of spaces left available. The Chancellor considered that the policy was appropriate and should be adhered to in the absence of any exceptional circumstances as to why the policy should be overridden. In these two cases the couple had been invited to put forward any exceptional circumstances, but they had failed to do so. The Chancellor therefore refused to grant faculties.

Application for a Faculty for the replacement of existing structures in the churchyard of a redundant church appropriated by a pastoral scheme for the use of an Oxford college. The work to include a new gardener’s office, greenhouse and cold frames and three storerooms and the removal of existing sheds and other structures, new bicycle stands to replace old ones, new fencing and the relocation of six monuments. Faculty granted for relocation of memorials and for only such other items as could not be regarded as "buildings" within the meaning of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884, which prohibits the erection of buildings within a disused burial ground.

The petitioner wished to have the remains of her late husband exhumed from the churchyard of the parish church of St. Peter Ireleth and reinterred in another plot in the same churchyard. The reason given for the request was that access to the current grave was inconvenient and unsafe, being impeded by scaffolding poles which had been in position since 2019, due to problems with the church roof, which could only be resolved as and when the church could raise the money to pay for the work. The Deputy Chancellor determined that there were no sufficiently exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation. Whilst access might be inconvenient, it was not unsafe and the difficulties were not likely to be long-lasting.

The proposal was to construct a ramp at the front of a 1960s church, facing an access from the road, in order to allow step-free access to the front of the church for the disabled. Objections were based on the design of the ramp, the possibility of its use by skateboarders and consequent safety issues, the fact that there was step-free access to the church from the car park at the rear, and difficulties of loading and unloading at the front of the church. Faculty granted.

The petition proposed the replacement of the link between the church and the Millennium Room (a church extension on the north side), providing a lobby, meeting rooms, storage and improved toilet and kitchen facilities. There were eight objections on behalf of eleven people, on the grounds of costs, but none became a party opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

As part of the church's aim to reduce its carbon footprint to net zero by 2030, the present proposal was to install solar panels on the roof of the south-aisle of the church, six storage batteries in the former organ blower room, two external heat pump evaporator units and associated cabling. The Chancellor considered that the panels would have little visual impact on the church and that the level of damage to the architectural and historical significance of the church would be very low. He therefore granted a faculty.

The proposals were the introduction of a nave altar; the removal of the rood screen; and removal/adaptation of the choir stalls. The Chancellor declined to grant a faculty for the proposed works without consideration being given to whether the chancel arch would need to be removed and also what replacement seating would be appropriate for the choir. He therefore adjourned the petition in order for these matters to be addressed.