The Petitioner sought permission retrospectively for a wooden surround and blue slate chippings installed without permission and contrary to the diocesan churchyards rules on a grave containing the remains of his grandparents. The Chancellor determined that there was no proper basis on which to permit a faculty. She therefore dismissed the petition and authorised the Parochial Church Council to remove the wooden surround and blue slate chippings.

The petitioners wished to have the cremated remains of their mother exhumed from the grave of her parents in one part of the churchyard and reinterred with the remains of the petitioners' father in another part of the same churchyard. Their father had expressed a wish to be buried with his wife, but the petitioners felt there would be difficulties in interring their father's ashes into the grave containing the remains of their mother and her parents. The Chancellor could find no special reasons for allowing exhumation. It would be possible to inter the ashes of the petitioners' father in the existing grave where his wife's remains were interred, thus fulfilling his wishes. Although there was insufficient space on the existing memorial to add the petitioners' father's name and dates of birth and death, the petitioners could lay a plaque in memory of their father on the grave, or else replace the existing memorial with a new one containing inscriptions in respect of the four people whose remains were interred in the grave. The petition was dismissed.

The Vicar and Churchwardens wished to fell twelve hornbeam trees lining the path to the south porch of the church. The trees were said to have outgrown their situation, resulting in the area being very dark, the grass beneath them being affected and the pathway becoming slippery. There were several written objections. The diocesan trees advisor and the local authority advised that the trees had grown too large for their setting. The Chancellor determined that the benefits of the proposal would outweigh the loss of amenity and she accordingly granted a faculty.

The main proposals for the Grade II Victorian church were for new glazed porch doors, a new inner glazed door (whilst retaining the historic timber doors), and improved access arrangements. The Victorian Society objected informally to the proposals relating to the doors, on the grounds that glazed doors would introduce an inappropriate element to a Victorian church and constitute harm to the significance of the listed building. Per contra, the petitioners argued that the glazed doors would provide openness and welcome. Moreover, similar glazed doors had been installed in the nearby Grade I church of Holy Trinity Kendal. The Chancellor considered that the justification for the works outweighed the low degree of potential harm to the church. He therefore granted a faculty.

The proposals included an extension to provide an accessible WC and external door lobby and adaptations to the existing meeting area (formerly a vestry) to include a kitchen, separated off by glazed screens from the rest of the church.  A water supply and sewerage system were required. The Chancellor was satisfied that the proposals were desirable and appropriate for the church and granted a faculty.

Proposals for re-ordering of the unlisted Victorian church comprised three items, only one of which was contentious, namely, removal of the existing altar dais and raised flooring in the sanctuary, mounting the altar on castors, and laying a new level floor with a parquet surface throughout the chancel. The intention was to create a more flexible area in the chancel for worship and for musical performances. Faculty granted.

The hearing in this case was supplemental to a faculty application determined by a hearing in January 2015 (see Re St. James the Apostle Islington [2015]), when the Chancellor granted a faculty for works to (inter alia) the chancel of the church. The present application also contained matters relating to the chancel. Two objectors in this case raised objections to the lighting only. The Chancellor ruled that the objections related only to procedural irregularities and not to the merits of the proposals. He therefore granted a faculty for all the additional works.

A churchwarden, on seeing that a medieval stained glass window of the Grade I church was bulging, arranged for its immediate removal and repair, without there being an application for an emergency faculty. Upon discovering that the work was being carried out, the incumbent applied for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the work and also for similar work to be carried out on any other windows identified as being in need of repair.

The Chancellor granted a faculty, firstly, to give retrospective approval to the internal redecoration of the church already carried out and, secondly, to permit the disposal of miscellaneous artefacts from the church, including a bier, a 'spare' reredos, a number of redundant pews and a side altar. The Chancellor dealt with the matter by written representations, rather than by a hearing, as he considered that none of the items could be described as a 'church treasure'.

A quinquennial report in 1986 recorded a serious state of deterioration of the stonework of the church. The church raised £30,000 and spent it on repairs. However, the tower was in a serious condition and an estimate of £140,000 was given for repairs to the tower alone. The Parochial Church Council of the small parish was unable to find the money for the urgent repairs and sought to sell two silver flagons, valued at £25,000, to help them to deal with the emergency. The Chancellor decided that, in order to meet the emergency, the sale of the flagons should be allowed, and he therefore granted a faculty for the sale of the silver.