The petitioners wished to replace most of the wooden benches in the nave of the Grade II church with upholstered wooden chairs from a local Baptist church. The Victorian Society objected to the proposal. The Diocesan Advisory Committee disagreed with the Victorian Society's reasons for objecting. One of the reasons for the proposal to replace the benches was that their legs were a trip hazard. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the benches were of no great quality, their replacement would remove a trip hazard, the chairs would provide the greater flexibility that the church needed, and the upholstery of the chairs was of such a colour as would not distract the viewer from taking in the splendours of the church building.

The Petitioner's grandparents were buried in a grave which has a double width headstone and a double kerb surround. Over time, the remains of the petitioner's late husband, her sister and her parents had been interred in the double grave. The petitioner now wished to carry out some renovation of the grave and place three grey granite tablets within the kerbs, with inscriptions recording the names of those interred since the petitioner's grandparents were interred. The Chancellor granted a faculty subject to a condition that there should be consistency in the format of the dates of death.

The reordering proposals included the construction of a WC and servery, the removal of a pipe organ installed in 1958 and its replacement with a digital organ. Two parishioners objected to the proposals. The Chancellor was satisfied that the proposed scheme would not cause harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest and accordingly granted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to re-locate the headstone at the grave of her son by a small distance sideways, so that it would be aligned with what she believed to be the centre of the head of her son’s grave. The vicar and churchwardens objected on the grounds that (1) realigning the stone would make it stand out amongst other stones in the churchyard with which it would not be in line; (2) headstones were aligned with those in rows behind them “for dignity, and creating an orderly environment”; (3) the petitioner had agreed in writing to the headstone being aligned with the stones behind; and (4) allowing the petition would be seen as creating a precedent. The Chancellor did not consider the first and fourth objections as carrying much weight, but that the second and third objections did. The vicar was entitled to require such uniformity of alignment of monuments as he thought fit, within the parameters of the churchyard regulations, and the petitioner had agreed in writing to the monument being placed where it was, even if there had been a mistake in understanding on her part. The Chancellor accordingly refused to grant a faculty.

The faculty petition proposed an extensive reordering to provide: more space in the nave, aisles and chancel with moveable seating; a team administration office; an enclosed meeting space; a new kitchen, refreshment point and toilets; a welcoming entrance, and improved audiovisual systems, Wi-Fi, heating and lighting. All the consultees agreed a specification which all parties could live with. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The Vicar and Churchwardens applied for a faculty to authorise the construction of a church hall, to replace on old shed-like building, on an unconsecrated extension to the churchyard to the east of the church. The new building would, however, encroach very slightly on to the consecrated part of the churchyard extension. The Chancellor granted a faculty, notwithstanding the slight encroachment of the proposed building on the consecrated part of the churchyard.

A faculty was granted for the following works in respect of a late 19th century Grade II* church: “to take up and relocate the font; to introduce a new altar and Ambo; to remove and dispose of the existing nave altar and Lady Chapel altar; to install additional lighting; to remove and dispose of seven high-level metal halide light fittings; to box in the electrical services in the baptistery.” Faculty granted. The Chancellor determined that the proposed works would affect the character and significance of the building. However, he was satisfied that, in conjunction with the proposed liturgical development, the effect of the works would be to enhance that character and significance.

There was a petition for the removal and sale of the Willis pipe organ installed soon after the church was built in the late 19th century. The organ was in a poor state of repair, had not been played since 1985, and was now unplayable. The Bethany Presbyterian Church in Rochester, New York, had offered to purchase the organ and restore it to its original design. The Chancellor granted a faculty. Although the removal of the organ would result in serious harm to the significance of the building in terms of its historical and architectural interest, the benefit of having the organ restored to full working order far outweighed the alternative, that the organ would continue to deteriorate, if left in situ.

The petitioners sought a faculty for a re-ordering of the chancel and north aisle, to include work to the floor, the removal of the choir pews and the relocation of some solid oak screens from the chancel to improve sight lines. The amenity bodies, for the most part, did not approve of the removal of the choir pews and relocation of the screens. The Chancellor found that, on balance, the public benefit would outweigh the likely harm that would ensue from the proposals and that it was therefore appropriate that a faculty should issue.

The petitioner wished to replace a severely damaged churchyard memorial, erected in about 1896, with a new memorial based upon the original design. The design was not within the churchyards regulations, being a stone cross upon three tiers of steps and with kerbs bearing an inscription around the edge. The person commemorated, Lady Mary Feilding, had been the founder of the Mary Feilding Guild, which promoted employment and suitable housing for ladies in need of some support. The Chancellor considered it appropriate to have a new memorial erected to the original design and granted a faculty subject to a condition (inter alia) that no chippings should be placed within the kerbs. He also gave permission for a plaque or inscription to be placed on the back of the memorial, setting out the year and reason for the installation of the replacement memorial, linked with the charitable legacy of Lady Mary Feilding.