The Vicar and Churchwardens of the unlisted church sought a faculty to remove the chancel and sanctuary furniture (with the exception of the Holy Table); the removal of a row of pews at the east end of the nave; the creation of a new raised floor (to be carpeted); the installation of underfloor heating; the installation of additional lighting in the chancel; and the replacement of the electronic organ console with a new one in a different position. The Twentieth Century Society objected to the removal of the choir stalls and the Communion rail. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to the Communion rail being retained, but moved to a position further east.

The peitition proposed the rebuilding and reordering of the church following damage by an arson attack. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of some elements of fabric, an extension on the north side of the church, and the proposed new design for the roof. The Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to conditions.

The petitioner wished to exhume the cremated remains of her husband from the churchyard at Ranmore in Surrey and reinter them in the churchyard at Fulbourn in Cambridgeshire. The deceased's remains had been interred in 2011, and in 2022 the petitioner had moved to live in Cambridgeshire. The petitioner was concerned that in years to come she might become physically unable to visit her husband's grave in Surrey. The Deputy Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Following the guidance in the Court of Arches decision in re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] 4 All ER 482, moving residence was not an exceptional reason to justify a departure from the normal rule that interment in consecrated ground should be regarded as permanent.

The proposals were: (1)    Repositioning of the font and removal of its plinth; and (2)    removal of eight pews from the north aisle to create a usable community space. The plinth was not original to the font and was regarded as a trip hazard. The church was the only community facility in the village. The Chancellor regarded the pine pews as having no intrinsic significance in themselves and he granted a faculty for all the works.

The petitioners, who lived in Lincolnshire, wished to exhume from the churchyard of St. Bartholomew Arborfield in Oxfordshire the cremated remains of their son and only child, who died aged 6 from leukaemia in 1981. They wished to reinter his remains in a new family grave in the churchyard of All Saints North Cave in the Diocese of York, where many of his mother's relatives were already buried and where the petitioners wished their remains to be buried. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He considered that special circumstances existed which constituted good and proper reasons for making an exception to the normal rule that Christian burial was final, including (inter alia) the absence of any connection between the child and Arborfield; the petitioners having had no settled home at the time of their son's death; the intense grief of the petitioners at his death and the pressure to have his remains interred as soon as possible; and the desire to create a family grave.

A stonemason had placed a memorial in the churchyard without the authority of the incumbent or a faculty. The Rector and PCC objected to the memorial, and the stonemason applied for a faculty for its retention. The memorial was outside the regulations in that the memorial was not flush with the level of the ground and at a slight sloping angle (the rear edge was higher above the ground than the front edge) and the face of the stone was polished. However, the Chancellor granted a faculty on the basis that, " ... the lack of uniformity in the immediately surrounding area means that the extent of that non-compliance is not sufficient to justify ordering the removal of the memorial."

The church's reredos comprises three painted panels. The central panel features ears of corn and a vine and grapes, and those to either side feature St Andrew and St Cecilia. The panel was originally placed under the east window in 1920, but during the intervening period had at various times been moved to other parts of the church. The petition proposed the conservation of the reredos and its reinstallation in its original position, but slightly higher on the east wall of the chancel, which would partly obscure the east window. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the conservation of the panels, but was not prepared to authorise the return of the reredos to the east wall until satisfied that there was a scheme for its location that worked in detail both when the altar table as up against the east wall and when it was brought forward.

The petitioner's daughter had died in tragic circumstances at the age of 23. The petitioner wished to have her daughter's ashes interred and a four feet high memorial stone erected in a part of the churchyard where the memorial could be seen from the petitioner's home. Although there was a churchyard policy that only flat stones should be allowed to mark cremated remains, the proposed location for the interment and memorial was away from the area where cremated remains were normally interred, and where there were other large memorials. The Chancellor determined that the pastoral reasons given for allowing the proposal were sufficient to justify permission being granted for the erection of the monument.

Faculty granted for the installation of a projector and screen in a Grade I listed Georgian church, the screen to be housed in a box across the sanctuary arch.

The churchwardens had made arrangements with the church architect and a contractor to install kitchenette facilities in a passage bounded on one side by the main wall of the church and on the other side by the remaining wall of a neighbouring cottage, long since demolished. When the work was almost completed, it was drawn to the attention of the Chancellor, who directed that an application should be made for a confirmatory faculty. In granting a faculty, subject to conditions, the Chancellor made it clear that these new works did not come within the list of works which could be carried out without faculty and that what had already been done had been carried out unlawfully. He directed that the costs of the application should be shared between the churchwardens, the architect and the contractor.