The Chancellor considered two petitions: (1) a petition by the deceased's partner to replace a memorial installed without authority by the deceased's son, and (2) a petition by the Archdeacon to replace the existing memorial with a memorial containing only the names and dates of birth and death of the deceased. The Chancellor had asked the Archdeacon to petition, so that, in default of an agreement between the parties as to a replacement memorial, the Chancellor was able to grant a faculty for a memorial with no contentious inscription. The Chancellor granted a faculty on petition (1), on the basis of an amended inscription agreed by the parties, and granted a faculty in relation to petition (2) in case the proposed memorial approved under petition (1) was not installed.

The war memorial in the churchyard recorded those who died in the First World War. The petitioners wished to add a plaque to record those who died in the Second World War. The plaque had already been cast, but not installed, prior to the petition being presented to the Chancellor. The Chancellor grnated a faculty, subject to the words “YOUR LIFE! OUR FREEDOM!"  
being removed from the plaque.

A faculty was granted for installation of telecommunications equipment. There was a late objection from Westminster City Council. The judgment contains a discussion of the planning and faculty processes and also of the meaning of "materially affects the external appearance" in relation to replacement of lead-covered oak louvres with fibreglass replicas.

Proposals for reordering included replacing most of the pews with unupholstered chairs; modifications to the north transept and chapel; upgrading of the lighting and sound systems; installation of air source heat pumps; construction of a link between the church and the church hall; and works to the church hall, including internal refurbishment; installation of solar panels and external works. The Chancellor determined that the works would cause less than significant harm to the church and that the public benefit would outweigh any such harm. He therefore granted a faculty.

The Vicar and Churchwardens applied for a faculty for the removal and sale of the Vicar’s Stall, which had not been used since it was moved to its present position next to the north wall in 1991, following reconstruction work after a major fire. The church is unlisted and there were no objections, but the Victorian Society wrote to say that they did not support the proposal. The Chancellor was satisfied that it was not practical to use the stall where it was, and there was no other appropriate place to put it. The Chancellor therefore granted a faculty.

The petition proposed the construction of a new boarding house for St. Paul's Cathedral School on the footprint of the former church (the body of which was destroyed by bombing in 1941), whilst retaining the Wren tower. Notwithstanding an objection from the Twentieth Century Society that the proposals would cause substantial harm and that this would not be outweighed by substantial public benefits, the Chancellor granted a faculty.

There was a proposal to install a toilet and kitchen facilities at the western end of the church, with associated water supply and drainage. Some further pew removal was also proposed. Historic England did not support the kitchen proposals. The proposed insertion of an extractor fan into a glass panel of the door into the tower concerned the Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Local Planning Authority. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the new toilet and associated water and drainage (to be treated as Phase 1), and considered that the parish should reconsider the remaining items (Phase 2).

The Vicar and Churchwardens wished to erect a prefabricated shed in the churchyard as a storage facility for the local scout group. The Chancellor did not regard it as appropriate that part of church land should be permanently given over to a secular storage building, but was willing to grant a faculty for a temporary licence to install and use the proposed building for a period of five years.

There was a proposal to remove two large yew trees growing close to the vestry. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for the removal of one tree, as it appeared that it had caused damage to the vestry. He declined to grant a faculty for the other tree, the removal of which would have resulted in a loss of privacy for a neighbour, unless (1) further monitoring showed that the tree was causing damage to the vestry; (2) the trees advisor or architect recommended the removal; and (3) a scheme of planting was proposed to preserve privacy for the neighbour.

There was a proposal to fell two yew trees in the churchyard and to reduce the height of three other yew trees. A neighbour argued that the felling of one of the trees would affect the amenity of his house. The petitioners said they wished to have the two trees removed in anticipation of building an extension to the church. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the felling of the first two trees. The petitioners would have to make a case for the removal of the trees if and when they submitted a petition for an ewxtension to the church. However, he granted a faculty for the reduction in height of the other three trees.