In 2009, the Chancellor of the Diocese of Lichfield refused to grant a faculty for the introduction a raised area at the east end of the nave and the moving of four pews from the south aisle to the north aisle to allow space for a ramp to the raised area. The appeal was allowed.

A faculty was granted for a memorial in the form of an urn.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for a proposed memorial which included kerbs.

The Vicar and Churchwardens wished to introduce six new stained glass windows into the church. Faculty granted.

The proposals were for extensive reordering of the Grade II church and the building of an extension in the churchyard to accommodate toilets, a kitchen, a store room, a meeting room and refurbished choir vestry and vicar's vestry and toilet. The extension would be built over one known grave of a married couple, who died in 1975 and 1980 respectively. The Chancellor was satisfied that, because the church extension would be built on piles, the grave would not be disturbed. He was also satisfied that the petitiners had discharged the burden of proving that (quoting Lord Penzance in Peek v Trower [1881]) "the church will be more convenient, more fit for the accommodation of the parishioners who worship there, more suitable, more appropriate, or more adequate to its purpose than it was before".

The priest-in-charge and churchwardens wished to carry out the following works: the disposal of 16 benches; the introduction of Alpha SB2M upholstered chairs; the installation of a screen and projector at the front of the church; the provision of a live link with the crèche; the installation of three metal gates outside to create a safer space for children; and the provision of a key safe. The Chancellor granted a facuty. The petitioners had produced a comprehensive Statement of Need to support the mission and growth of the church. However, the Chancellor did not consider that the peitioners had made a good case for upholstered chairs and the faculty was therefore subject to a condition that the chairs should not be upholstered.

The proposals were for a major re-ordering of the churchyard, which included the removal of a section of the 19th century churchyard wall included in the Grade I listing of the church, the creation of a piazza with seating and a new parking area. The reason for the proposed removal of a section of the wall was to open the church up to the adjoining public square, so as to allow for greater community use of the square and churchyard. The Victorian Society objected strongly to the removal of the wall, but did not wish to be a party opponent. Looking at the wider context of a growing church and a developing and culturally growing city, the Chancellor determined that the significant potential benefits of the scheme to the church and community would outweigh the moderate loss which would be caused by the development.

The proposals were for a major reordering, for most of which there were no objections. Amongst the amenity societies consulted, only the Victorian Society became a party opponent, objecting principally to the proposed removal from the nave of "one of the most magnificent and extensive suites of Victorian church seating in the country". In weighing the benefits which the proposals would bring against any loss to the historical and architectural importance of the church, the Chancellor had to consider the evidence of the petitioners as to the financial viability of the church if the works were not carried out. On balance he determined in favour of the petitioners and granted a faculty.

The petition proposed the construction of extensions to the south side of the Grade I church to house a new toilet block, a kitchen and a cafe with a grill-pattern design on the western elevation, opening on to the adjoining Trinity Square. The petition was unopposed. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) acted as the lead commentator for the amenity societies. They acceded to the principle of the extensions and concentrated their response on some technical and practical matters about which they offered observations and advice. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The priest-in-charge and churchwardens petitioned for the introduction of a set of altar frontals in liturgical colours for the main altar. The objects of their proposal were: "firstly to introduce the colours of the church’s liturgical year more prominently into the building and secondly to add colour to what is otherwise a relatively drab space apart from the windows." Two letters of objection were received. One objector questioned the appropriateness of such adornment, when funds might be better spent on outreach. The other objector considered it wrong to cover up the beautifully carved Victorian altar table. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the petitioners had put forward a good argument for their proposal and that the objections did not amount to a good reason as to why the change should not be permitted.