The proposal was to protect the external walls of the chancel and the east wall of the nave, which are composed of rubble with field and flint stones and earth consolidated mortar, which is very soft, by applying lime rendering. The evidence was that the church stonework had been rendered until some time during the 19th century. Three alternative thicknesses of rendering were proposed. There was disagreement amongst the interested parties and advisers over which option should be chosen, and so the decision was left to the Chancellor. The  Chancellor granted a faculty to allow one of the thicker rendering options, subject to a condition that where the render met the stone of windows, doors, buttresses, etc., the render was to be feathered down to meet the stonework.

The petitioner applied for a faculty giving her the right to be buried in the same grave as her former partner, with whom she had lived for 25 years until his death in 1986. The family of the deceased's first partner, who died in 1957, objected to the petitioner having the right to be buried in the same grave as their father, there having been a division between the two families. The Chancellor declined to grant a faculty: "In my judgment the dispute between the parties weighs in favour of non-intervention."

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty to authorise a proposed memorial which was outside the Churchyards Regulations by reason of size (base width 60ins and stone 48ins high on top of a plinth 14ins high); type of stone and finish (blue polished granite); and inscription (overly long and sentimental message addressed by the family to the deceased). The Chancellor made it clear that the presence of other memorials in the churchyard which were outside the regulations and installed without faculty did not oblige him to authorise further similar memorials.

In 1959, a faculty had been granted to authorise the introduction into the church of a painting entitled 'Ecce, Homo', which was attributed to Murillo. The Chancellor was now asked to grant a confirmatory faculty for the loan of the painting to the Bristol Art Gallery in 2012, which had taken place without the authority of a faculty. The Church Buildings Council supported the loan in the interests of the care and security of the painting, subject to a good quality copy being placed in the church. The Chancellor granted a faculty subject to that condition.

The proposals included: "to install an electronically operated retractable projector screen, to be installed behind the chancel arch; to install a projector which will be discreetly mounted in front of the screen on one of the roof beams; to install four monitors to be positioned so as to be clearly seen – two from the altar ...". English Heritage and the Victorian Society objected. The Chancellor considered the principles laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield, and determined to grant a Faculty: "I am persuaded both by their very limited visibility [the screens] and the reversibility of the project and the liturgical needs of the church that those needs significantly outweigh the modest harm which may be caused."

The Vicar and Churchwardens sought a faculty to authorise a substantial reordering of the church. This judgment deals with the first phase: replacement of pews with chairs, the levelling/replacement of the floor, the construction of a chancel dais, and the installation of two toilets, one of which will be accessible. Initial consultation with, and the views of, the Diocesan Advisory Committee, Historic England, the Church Buildings Council and the Victorian Society had been on the understanding that the proposed replacement chair would be an all wood 'Theo' chair, but when the petition came before the Chancellor the petitioners had chosen instead a metal-framed, upholstered 'SB2M' chair. The Chancellor approved in principle all the items, but was not prepared to approve the SB2M chair without further consultation taking place with the before-mentioned bodies and a further opportunity for the petitioners to consider an alternative chair or make a stronger case for the SB2M chair.

The proposed works were: removal of the front two pews and pew fronts in the nave, together with two radiators; electrical sockets to be relocated; and carpeting to match existing. The Chancellor considered that the proposed works would not damage the overall significance of the church as a listed Victorian church and that there was a clear justification for carrying out the proposals, in view of the “public benefit and particularly the opportunities for mission and putting the church to viable uses that are consistent with its role as a place of worship and mission”. He therefore granted a faculty.

The proposal was to install 28 black solar panels on the existing slate roof on the south side of the Grade II* church, with associated battery storage to be installed in the church tower. The Lake District National Park Authority had refused planning permission, but the petitioners were planning an appeal. The Diocesan Advisory Committee (“DAC”) had recommended the proposal, but Historic England, the Georgian Group and Historic Buildings & Places had raised objections, without becoming parties opponent. The Chancellor considered that the proposal, if implemented, would cause only moderate harm to the building and would be reversible. He also observed that the proposal would be a response to the Church of England’s call to action in respect of climate change. He granted a faculty subject to conditions that planning consent should first be obtained and that the panels should be removed after 26 years, the DAC’s estimate as to the probable lifespan of the panels.

Faculty granted for telecomms antennae to be placed in the tower of a Grade II* early nineteenth century church.

The petition proposed a reordering, the main item of which was to construct a 'tower' three storey structure at the east end of the church (which was consecrated in 1933) to provide room facilities on three levels. One wall of the new facilities would become a reredos for the remaining east end space, which would continue to be used for worship. Other items proposed included the removal of the baldachino and the removal of two very large murals (affixed to, not painted on) the walls of the nave, and the moving of the font to the east end of the south aisle. The Chancellor granted a faculty for all the items, except for the moving of the font.