The proposal was to construct limed oak seating around the semi-circle of the apse of the Lady Chapel, terminating in a credence table at the southern end. The Vicar and Churchwardens and the Parochial Church Council wished to make the chapel suitable for other forms of service in addition to Holy Communion. There were three objectors in response to the public notice, only one of whom became a party opponent. His principal objection was that "The Chapel dedicated to Our Lady is for prayer and celebration of the Eucharist. It is not intended as a place for any other gathering, nor is it appropriate for con-celebration." The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposals and granted a faculty.

The proposal was to improve the south west entrance into the Abbey, partly as there was no processional entry into the nave and partly to make entrance easier for the disabled. This would involve the replacement of the Victorian draught lobby. The Victorian Society opposed the proposal, but did not wish to be a party opponent. At the conclusion of a hearing, the Chancellor granted a faculty: “… I am satisfied that, although the removal or alteration of the lobby would indeed adversely affect the character of the abbey as a building of special architectural or historic interest, the necessity for change based upon the need for disabled access has clearly been proved and outweighs any argument for its retention.” The faculty was subject to a condition that the dismantled Victorian draft lobby should be stored in the abbey (in case future generations might wish to reinstate it) and the dismantled pieces should marked or labelled to show both their provenance and the fact that they remained the subject of the faculty jurisdiction.

Extensive reordering works were proposed. The controversial aspects of the proposals were the removal of the pews, their replacement with chairs, and the installation of a new timber floor. The Chancellor was satisfied that the public benefit to be derived from the works would outweigh any harm to the interior of the church and he therefore granted a faculty.

Medieval tracery and stained glass forming the east window of the church had been removed in the 1880s, due to subsidence. New tracery and stained glass were installed. The old glass and tracery were placed in storage. In 1975 the tracery was laid out near the replacement east window and the glass was given on loan to the Stained Glass Museum at Ely.The Vicar and Churchwardens now sought a faculty to convert the loan of the glass to a gift. Re St Lawrence Oakley with Wootton St. Lawrence [2014] Court of Arches considered. Faculty granted

Faculty granted for the installation of an audio-visual system in a Grade II* Queen Anne church.

The Petitioner applied for permission to erect a memorial to her son, who had been tragically run over and killed by a motor car. The memorial as installed bore features which were not mentioned in the memorial application - black stone; gold lettering; a photo plaque; the insignia of a football club; and the club colours (red and white) painted in alternate stripes along the edges of the memorial. The Chancellor directed that the edges of the memorial should be painted black, and the photo plaque should be removed or replaced with an incised, uncoloured portrait. In default of the amendments being made within three months, the Chancellor directed that the memorial should be removed from the churchyard.

There were proposals for reordering and the objector objected to the moving of the tombs of two bishops who were founding members of the Community, the levelling of the floor, the provision of heating and lighting, and the removal of the choir stalls and screen. The Chancellor directed the issue of a faculty for all the proposals, apart from the moving of the two tombs.

This is an anonymised judgment. The petitioner proposed to be buried in the same grave as her late sister and parents. However, when her sister's husband died, his cremated remains were interred in the same grave, notwithstanding that a granddaughter of the late sister had specifically asked the parish priest not to inter the husband's remains in the same grave, alleging that the husband had subjected her to repeated sexual abuse when she was young, and it would cause great distress to the family to have his remains in the same grave where the remains of some members of the family were already interred and where other members of the family wished their remains to be interred. The Chancellor decided that the continuing family distress which would be caused by allowing the husband's remains to be left in the grave amounted to exceptional circumstances justifying exhumation. He therefore granted a faculty for the exhumation of the husband's cremated remains and for reinterment of the remains in another churchyard.

There were extensive reordering proposals for the 1930s unlisted church at an estimated cost of nearly £1,000,000 (of which £775,000 was already available from the sale of some property): substantial reordering of the church, works to the church hall, which is a detached building, and other external works, involving the creation of an external play area, slight relocation of the war memorial, and widening of existing footpaths. The Twentieth Century Society raised no objections to the proposals. The Chancellor granted a faculty subject to a condition that no work should commence until the Parochial Church Council had raised at least £900,000.

The incumbent and churchwardens sought a confirmatory faculty in respect of temporary reordering works previously authorised by an Archdeacon's Licence. The works comprised the removal of eight pews (simple pitch pine benches) and two pew frontals from the west end of the nave, together with the consequential floor repair and making safe of exposed electrical wiring. There were several letters of objection from local people. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the proposed changes would not result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest and that the Petitioners had discharged the burden upon them in proving that the proposed change was justified, namely, providing easier access to the nave for those with wheelchairs or pushchairs.