The Parochial Church Council wished to carry out works extending the church hall, next to the southern boundary of the churchyard, in order to improve the facilities that it affords for uses that are ancillary to the church and for wider community use. The proposed works included removal of two trees; relocation of memorials; removal and rebuilding gate post; resurfacing of the path. Letters of objection were submitted by eight parishioners, of whom one withdrew and two became formal objectors. The Chancellor stated that the test to be applied was not the test laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2001] (which applied to listed buildings) but the test set out by Lord Penzance in Peek v Trower [1881]: "All presumption is to be made in favour of things as they stand.  If you and others propose to alter them, the burden is cast upon you to shew that you will make things better than they are – that the church will be more convenient, more fit for the accommodation of the parishioners who worship there, more suitable, more appropriate, or more adequate to its purpose than it was before; and if you cannot shew this to the court, at least shew the court that a majority of those for whose worship the church exists desires the alterations which you propose." The Chancellor determined that the test had been satisfied. Faculty granted.

A parishioner objected to a proposal to introduce a new lighting scheme into the 13th century Grade II* church, but he chose not to become a party opponent. The Chancellor considered the parishioner's eight grounds of objection and considered that none of them provided a reason for refusing the grant of a faculty.

This judgment related to two separate faculty petitions by husband and wife for the reservation of adjoining grave spaces. The couple, in their early to mid-seventies, were resident in the parish, the wife had served on the Parochial Church Council for 25 years and as a churchwarden for 10 years, and the couple worshipped in the church and financially supported it. It was estimated that there was sufficient burial space in the churchyard for at least 15 years. A former churchwarden objected to the two particular plots being reserved, claiming that one of the plots contained a Victorian grave and the other was likely to contain the remains of a medieval cross. However, the objector was unable to produce any evidence of his claims. The Chancellor requested that the plots should rodded, and it was found that there was nothing to obstruct burials. In view of this and the petitioners' strong connections with the church, the Chancellor granted faculties limited to a period of 20 years.

A faculty was sought for major re-ordering of an unlisted Victorian church, including relocation of the font, replacement of pews with chairs, re-flooring, new kitchen and toilets and relocation of a screen. The Church Buildings Council and the Diocesan Advisory Committee approved the proposals, and Historic England supported the Victorian Society, who approved the proposals subject to agreed amendments. A faculty was granted.

A faculty had been granted in 2016 to authorise extensive reordering works in the church. The faculty had authorised (inter alia) solid wood Rosehill chairs. The petitioners now wished, after the extended period for completion of the works had elapsed, to introduce Alpha chairs with wooden backs and upholstered seats. The Chancellor refused to grant such variation to the faculty granted in 2016, so as now to allow part-upholstered chairs, but indicated that he would be prepared to consider a further application for variation in respect of one of the alternative solid wood chairs suggested by the church's inspecting architect prior to the 2016 faculty.

The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of her father exhumed from the churchyard and interred along with the body of her mother in the nearby cemetery, where her brother was also buried. The Chancellor decided that this was a case where an exception could be allowed to the general rule against allowing exhumation, since he considered it a mistake for the family, on the parish priest's advice, to have had the father's cremated remains interred in the churchyard, when the family knew that the mother was against cremation and that further coffin burials in the churchyard were not possible; furthermore, the remains of the three family members who had died – father, mother and son – would then be together.

The intention of the proposals was to improve on a scheme of reordering in 1988, by providing at the west end of the church a larger circulation area near the main door; meeting space; toilet facilities for the disabled; an entrance meeting disablility standards; a kitchen and servery; and a storage area. The Chancellor was satisfied that the majority of the works would result in an improvement to the interior of the church and he granted a faculty for all the items, with the exception of the proposed wheelchair lift at the entrance, which he connsidered 'would have a somewhat utilitarian feel to it'.

The petitioner (aged 98) and her late husband had lived in Belgium but had regularly travelled to Felixstowe over many years to visit the petitioner's mother. The petitioner's husband had died in 1992 and his ashes had been interred in Felixstowe Cemetery. The husband had no religious faith and the petitioner believed at the time of interment of his ashes that the ashes were being interred in an unconsecrated part of the cemetery, though it was eventually discovered that the whole of the cemetery was consecrated. The petitioner now wished to exhume her husband's ashes, and after her death to have his ashes and her own ashes scattered on the seashore in Felixstowe, in order to fulfill their long-held wish. In 1993, at the time when it was thought that the grave was unconsecrated, the petitioner had obtained a Home Office Licence to exhume her husband's ashes, but she had allowed the licence to lapse. The Chancellor, in the very special circumstances of this case, decided to treat this as an exceptional situation where he felt justified in granting a faculty.

Faculty granted for construction of a single storey extension to incorporate a kitchenette and disabled toilet, and associated works.

The proposals included: (1) replacing the iron gates to the porch with glazed sliding doors; (2) new porch lighting and glazing of one porch window to match the other; (3) relocation of the internal 1906 wooden lobby to the west end of the south aisle and its conversion to storage space; and (4) removal of a pew in the south aisle to allow the relocation of the lobby; and (5)) replacement of the ramp inside the lobby with a new ramp with handrails. The Chancellor granted a faculty for items (1) and (2), but not item (3) (the relocation of the lobby) as proposed, in consequence of which items (4) and (5) were not approved.