The area around the font of the Grade I church consisted of sandstone flags, which over time had become very worn and had been patched with slate and concrete. The proposal was to relay the area with stone to match the existing stone around it, and to re-locate the slate to the south side to complete the paving of the south aisle in slate, all but the west end of that aisle already being paved in slate. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings objected to the proposal, preferring to see further patch repairs. Having inspected the floor, the Chancellor was satisfied that the proposed work was necessary in the interests of safety from trip-hazards, and being satisfied also that the work would not result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest.

The priest-in-charge and churchwardens sought a faculty for a reordering of the interior of the Grade II listed church. The works included: the removal of some pews; a carpeted nave dais; removal of the riddel posts; upholstered chairs;and other items. The Chancellor, having considered the approach recommended in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013] Fam 158, decided that " ... any harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest is outweighed by the proven needs of the parish ... the determinative feature seems to be that all these proposals are wholly reversible."

The proposed works comprised the construction of an extension at the west end of the south elevation of the church, to provide a lobby, toilets and kitchen, and the relocation of the font. The Chancellor determined that the public benefit of the changes to the Grade II listed church building would outweigh such harm to its significance as might result from the works.

The parish priest applied for a restoration order following the interment in the churchyard without permission of a portion of the cremated remains of the novelist Tom Sharpe, together with various other items. The Chancellor granted a restoration order.

The petitioner wished to place on his wife's grave a cast iron memorial, which included, as part of the design, a cluster of five-pointed stars, as his wife's name was Stella. The Parochial Church Council was opposed to this type of memorial on the basis that it would not be in keeping with the stone memorials in the churchyard and it would set a precedent. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Church Buildings Council had no objections to the design. The Chancellor considered that the memorial would be fitting and appropriate. There was a tradition of cast iron headstones in the area, though not in this particular churchyard. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the stars should not be pierced through the memorial, but that the stars and the lettering should be raised. This was for health and safety reasons, lest children might injure themselves on the sharp points of pierced stars.

The incumbent and churchwardens wished to remove from the churchyard a headstone which had been introduced in December 2016 as a memorial to the mother and sister of the party opponent. A memorial had been erected in 1974, when the mother died. In 2016, when the daughter died, the stonemason submitted a memorial application in the standard form for a replacement memorial, which the incumbent approved. In due course the stonemason installed a memorial which was not in accordance with the approved application, and which had a number of features which were outside the churchyards regulations. The Chancellor ordered that the memorial should be removed and, as agreed between the stonemason and the party opponent, replaced by a new memorial at the expense of the stonemason. The stonemason was ordered to pay part of the Diocesan Registry costs and part of the party opponent's solicitors' costs.

The proposed works included: glazed frameless inner doors; a new limestone floor with under-floor heating; the removal of a plywood ceiling, the oak reredos on the east wall, 1950s pews, a replacement organ, lighting and cables; the provision of new lighting and projection facilities; the introduction of chairs; and the construction of a freestanding ‘extension’ building in the churchyard. Five objectors did not wish to be parties opponent. The Deputy Commissary General deemed the changes wholly appropriate and granted a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow a series of 'Manx Crosses' (stone crosses and slabs bearing crosses) to be displayed in armoured glass cabinets which would form a wall between the west end of the church and the church hall.

The petition proposed the replacement of the Victorian pine pews in the nave and north aisle with “Theo” beech chairs manufactured by Trinityex Church Furniture and also the replacement of the pew heaters with chandelier heaters. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had put forward a convincing justification for the removal of the pews. The heating proposal was for six “medieval style” chandeliers, each having three 1.0kw low glow infra-red radiant heaters and three up-lighters with LED candle type lamps. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings did not approve of the type of chandelier and suggested a larger, more expensive model. The Chancellor decided that the type proposed by the petitioners should be allowed, as it would meet the parish's needs at a reasonable cost and would be aesthetically acceptable.

The churchwardens and fabric officer of the church petitioned for a confirmatory faculty in relation to works of refurbishment to the area for cremated remains in the churchyard, which was surrounded by stone flags. Over a period prior to the summer of 2015 there had been complaints about the untidiness of the area and nine further interments of ashes had taken place outside the area, which had become full. The PCC, without a faculty, extended the area from 32 plots to 106 plots, replaced the turf with gravel, and constructed a low wall surmounted with stone around the enlarged plot. Following the discovery of the works by the Archdeacon, an application was made for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor was very concerned about the works, both from an aesthetic point of view and more importantly because of potential future maintenance issues. She granted a faculty for a limited period of 10 years, after which the situation should be reviewed.