A decision on two petitions. One was for the construction of a church centre on part a 1965 addition to the churchyard (which had been consecrated) and the other for permission to grant a lease of the Church Centre site to a charitable company with a view to the construction and operation of the church centre. Faculty granted. Consideration of the law applicable to building in a churchyard in use

Reordering proposals included: remove toilet, replace with servery and construct mezzanine with staircase and screen facing the nave; replace pews and pew platforms with 'Theo' chairs; new stone floor; repositioning of the font; electrical heating, lighting and audio-visual works; internal redecoration; and relocation of the chancel screen. The greatest concerns of the amenity societies related the mezzanine and stairs. The Chancellor was satisfied that the works were appropriate and granted a faculty subject to conditions.

The petitioner wished to erect in the churchyard a memorial to her two children, who had died, aged 6 and 9, from Batten disease. When the first child had died, a memorial which was outside the churchyards regulations had been installed without permission. Following the death of the second child, the petitioner sought approval of a new memorial design, with an image of Winnie-the-Pooh at the top and the inscription including phrases from other children's literature - “To infinity and beyond” and “We love you to the moon and back”.  The Chancellor granted a faculty. He considered that the petitioner had made out a compelling case and that there were exceptional pastoral reasons for approving the design, to give comfort and solace to the petitioner and her family.

A memorial comprising a headstone and a ledger stone had been installed in the churchyard without the prior knowledge of the Team Rector, following the interment of a fourth member of the family in the same grave. The family was advised that the Team Rector could not have approved the memorial anyway, as features of the memorial were outside the churchyards regulations. The family applied for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor directed that a photograph on the headstone and two emblems of Liverpool Football Club should be removed. Whilst not happy about the nature and extent of the inscriptions, the Chancellor otherwise granted a faculty. He considered that the stonemason had been remiss in not advising the family that they should have applied for a faculty for a memorial outside the regulations and should therefore meet the cost of removal of the photograph and the football club emblems.

The petitioners wished to introduce sixteen upholstered Alpha A1LE chairs together with four dining tables into the north aisle of the church, from which the pews had been removed in 1997. The vicarage had recently been sold, resulting in the loss of a room for church meetings. The tables and chairs would be used for refreshments and fellowship after church services and for meetings of the Parochial Church Council. Although satisfied that a case was made for tables and chairs, the Chancellor was concerned that the particular chairs chosen would "have a real impact on the appearance and special significance of this grade II* church. They will strike a discordant note and will detract from the overall character of the interior." He therefore refused to grant a faculty, but invited the petitioners to consider alternative chairs in consultation with the Diocesan Advisory Committee.

The Priest in Charge and the churchwardens petitioned for a faculty to remove the existing Victorian storm porch and to replace it with a porch consisting of glass doors in a timber frame. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and English Heritage supported the proposals. The Victorian Society felt that the new doors would be too reflective. The architect explained that the doors would be set back and would therefore not have the reflective appearance the Victorian Society feared. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioner had discovered that the memorial to her husband had not been laid directly over the casket containing his ashes, when she had previously been assured by a churchwarden this that was not the case. (She in fact had taken it upon herself without faculty to move the casket under the memorial.) The petitioner felt that she had been deliberately misled, and she wished to have her husband's ashes exhumed and reinterred in a local cemetery. This had given rise to a breakdown in relationships between the petitioner and the vicar and churchwardens. The petitioner claimed that every time she visited her husband's grave she felt anger and grievance towards the vicar and churchwardens. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for exhumation and reinterment: "The fact that the widow or widower of a person whose remains have been interred in a particular churchyard has strong feelings of anger and grievance towards the incumbent and churchwardens of the particular church cannot justify the exhumation of the remains in question."

The Chancellor granted a faculty the authorise the introduction of 8-10 sheep into one of the three churchyards of the parish, for the purpose of keeping down the vegetation.

The Parochial Church Council (PCC) proposed adding a new porch with glazed doors to provide easier access, a more welcoming entrance, and to minimise draughts. The PCC amended its original design after comments from the Ancient Monuments Society and the Victorian Society. The Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits of the proposals were of sufficient substance to outweigh any negative impact that there might be on the appearance and significance of the unlisted church.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the erection a pre-fabricated timber framed building in the community garden at the side of the church. The building would be supported on concrete blocks and would therefore require the provision of a temporary ramp to allow access for the disabled. The judgment contains a discussion on the need for compliance with the Equality Act 2010.