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. 

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.