Faculty refused for a two-storey church extension on the grounds of size and appearance.

The rector and churchwardens had presented two faculty petitions, whereby they wished to carry out an extensive programme of repairs and reordering of the church interior, build an extension to the church on the north side, and carry out other works in the churchyard. The works included adjusting floor levels, removing some pews and demolishing a building in the churchyard used for storage. The Deputy Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits of the proposals outweighed any limited harm that they might cause and he therefore granted a faculty for each phase of the proposed works.

The proposals were to remove the front seats in the sanctuary; to extend the Chancel step into a semi-circle and install a moveable altar rail and locate the Side Altar as a nave altar; to remove all the wooden flooring, cut down the pews whilst retaining the pew ends, and so to make the pews moveable; and to provide ramps to run west and east along the wall line from the southwest door. Principles in Re St. Alkmund Duffield considered. Faculty granted for all items, apart from the removal of pews west of the cross aisle (except those next to the proposed ramp).

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise kerbs to be placed around a grave. The installation of kerbs was outside the diocesan churchyards regulations, but in this particular case the grave concerned was surrounded by graves with kerbs, such that kerbs 'appear to be the norm, rather than the exception'.

The petitioner wished to place in the churchyard a horizontal memorial tablet measuring 18in. by 18 in. to mark the interment of her late husband's cremated remains. Originally, her proposal requested the inclusion of two flower holders in the tablet, and an additional hole for a 'solar stick'. She also wished to have an inscription 15 lines long. The incumbent and Parochial Church Council ("PCC") objected to the proposal. It was customary to allow only one flower holder, no solar sticks, and an inscription giving dates and a brief biblical quote or words of comfort. Following correspondence, the petitioner amended her proposal to include only one flower holder, no solar stick and an inscription 10 lines long. To accommodate and support the PCC's policy, the Chancellor settled an inscription five lines long, which he would find acceptable. He allowed the petitioner 28 days in which to decide whether to accept the inscription, in which case a faculty would be granted. If the petitioner did not accept the inscription, the petition would be dismissed.

The petitioner wished to erect on the grave of his late wife a red granite memorial with a polished face and gold lettering. The priest-in-charge declined to approve the memorial on the grounds that gold lettering was not permissible and that the size and colour of the memorial would not be in keeping with the other memorials in the churchyard. The Chancellor determined that it would be unreasonable to refuse a faculty for the memorial, as the use of gold lettering was widespread in the churchyard; also, there was a large number of polished granite stones which, though mostly black, did include a number of red granite stones, including  a red granite stone on the grave next to the grave of the petitioner's wife.

Two white alabaster memorials to parishioners who had died serving in the First and Second World Wars had been fixed to the east wall of the church porch. Recent research by a parishioner had suggested that there were spelling mistakes in three of the names recorded. The Parish Council applied for permission to have the alleged mistakes corrected. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Whilst accepting that a letter in the first name might have been incorrect, there was no evidence that an initial in the second name was a mistake or a choice, and there was no basis for considering that the way of spelling the third name inscribed was other than the choice or direction of the relatives: "There is no need to make the suggested alterations, no widespread or well-supported desire to do so, and no known way in which they could be made satisfactorily." Moreover, full details of those commemorated were available in folders in the church. 

The petition proposed the removal and disposal by sale of the existing 25 pews and their replacement with 125 Howe 40/4 chairs. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty.

The proposal was to introduce a ramp and steps just inside the north door, which is the main entrance to the Grade I church in regular use. English Heritage opposed the proposal. However, the Chancellor decided to grant a faculty subject to an amendment to the design suggested by English Heritage.

The works proposed by the petitioners included the removal of pews from the north and south aisles and the augmentation of toilet and kitchen facilities within the church. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of pews. Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013] considered. Faculty granted.