An application was made for a Faculty to authorise the removal of a Victorian pipe organ, and its replacement with an electric organ. This would be part of a larger project of re-ordering, for which an application for a faculty had not yet been made. The reasons for removal of the organ were that the organ was rarely used, it did not suit the evangelical style of worship, and its removal would free up space to create two meeting rooms. The Victorian Society objected to the proposals. Re St. Alkmund Duffield considered. Faculty granted.

The faculty petition proposed a major reordering of a Grade II* listed church, the details of which are too numerous to include in this brief note, but included the replacement of the vestry with a four storey extension to the church, to provide meeting rooms and offices; the removal of the pews and replacement with Howe 40/4 chairs; the carpeting of the whole floor; and the creation of a kitchen. The amenity societies involved objected to several of the proposals. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the items. One of the items he declined to approve was the carpeting of the nave.

The proposal was to remove the last three remaining rows of 20th century pews from the nave of the Grade I church, to 'facilitate flexible use of the nave for worship and missional events'. The Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits of removal far outweighed any disadvantages and he accordingly granted a faculty.

An extensive programme of reordering was proposed for the Grade II* Georgian church, including replacing the existing extensions on the north and south sides of the church and the replacement of the nave pews with 'Theo M' stackable chairs. The justification put forward for the works was that the church had experienced significant growth and had been designated by the Bishop as a resourcing church, to promote Church growth, including resourcing other churches and planting new ones. The proposed works would provide great facilities to meet this objective. The Georgian Society ('GS') and the Victorian Society ('VS') objected to the removal of the pews and the VS objected to the two extensions. Neither the GS nor the VS became parties opponent. Whilst acknowledging the significance of the pews and existing architecture of the church, the Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that any harm to such significance would be outweighed by the public benefit. In his judgment, the Chancellor addressed the meaning of ‘serious’ in the fifth Duffield question.

The petitioners wished to replace the church's wooden chairs, upholstered in red and with many showing their age, with tubular metal chairs upholstered in 'graphite' grey. The wooden chairs could only be stacked five high when space was required for an event, whereas the metal chairs could be stacked 25 high and moved around on a trolley. The metal chairs were also lighter and therefore easier to move and stack. There were two letters of objection, the main objection being the aesthetic appearance of metal chairs. Another objection was that, unlike the wooden chairs, the metal ones would not have a shelf under the seat for Bibles and hymn books. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He considered that, whilst the proposed grey colour was more sombre than the existing red upholstered chairs, this would be offset by the brightness of the white walls of the church's interior and the light carpeting.

The proposals included an accessible toilet within the west tower, removal of the pews, new stone flooring and a new heating system including underfloor heating and perimeter radiators heated by a replacement gas boiler. There was opposition from the statutory consultees. The Chancellor had to consider whether the petitioners, as required by the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015, had given 'due regard' to the net zero guidance on reducing carbon emissions issued by the Church Buildings Council. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the petitioners, through their heating consultant, had considered all alternative sources of heating and that "at the present time, a replacement gas boiler is the only viable and affordable heating option which will meet all the relevant needs and aspirations of the church".

In 2007 the Parochial Church Council passed a resolution implementing a policy of restricting the interment of ashes in the closed churchyard to those of people on the electoral roll at their death and whose names has been on the roll continuously for at least the last ten years; also that no further memorial stones should be permitted. The petitioner wished to have his wife's cremated remains interred in a new plot and a memorial plaque placed over the plot. The petitioner's wife had been on the electoral roll for three years, but the family had worshipped at the church for many years and members of the family were buried in the churchyard, with the burials marked by memorials. The Chancellor stated that the PCC's policy could not override his discretion and granted a faculty for the interment and memorial.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Land Registration Division of the Property Chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal, which resulted from an application by the Incumbent and the Diocesan Board of Finance (the Respondents in the appeal) to register the title to the church. The church at Dalton was completed in 1837 and was conveyed to the Church Building Commissioners by Edward Collingwood as a chapel of ease for the parish of Newburn. The conveyance reserved to the donor the burial vault under the nave for the interment of the donor and his heirs. The last interment of a member of the Collingwood family was in 1940. By a pastoral scheme made in 2004, the church was declared redundant.  Before the scheme, the church was always open, but after the scheme it was kept locked. The issue was whether the respondents (or either of them) had made out a claim to the vault based on adverse possession. The  decision of the Upper Tier Tribunal was that the respondents could not claim title to the vault by adverse possession.

The proposal was to introduce two new glass screens, between the eastern end of the nave and the south transept and between the south transept and the lady chapel. The result will be to enable the south transept to be used as a separate room. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case and that there was "no evidence that this proposal would harm the character of this listed church – as opposed to merely changing it."

The Petitioner wished to add the word 'Beloved' to the memorial on his father's grave, on a blank line before the words 'Father, Teacher, Linguist'. The incumbent and one of the churchwardens became parties opponent and there were two parishioners who submitted letters of objection. In 2010 the petitioner had been convicted of murdering his father, and had been sentenced to life imprisonment. Following the murder, the petitioner had buried his father's body under concrete and had made a pretence to the community that his father was still alive. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. He concluded that, given the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to allow the word 'Beloved' to be added to the memorial, and would be likely to give offence to the local community. Furthermore, the word would appear to the public as an expression of the petitioner's continuing denial of the offence for which he had been convicted.