There was an unopposed petition for re-ordering, including removing an existing extension on the north side of the church and constructing a spacious hallway, welcome area, toilets and store connected to the church through a new doorway into the narthex. Applying the criteria laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013] Fam 158, the Chancellor determined that any harm to the Grade II listed building would be slight, and accordingly granted a Faculty.

This was an application for a confirmatory faculty in respect of a memorial, a vertical slab of black marble, with gilt lettering, mounted on a horizontal plinth, spanning two plots in an area for cremated remains, and the only vertical memorial in that area. The memorial also contained small engraved images of the two persons commemorated. The Chancellor refused to grant a confirmatory faculty for the upright memorial, but authorised its replacement within 12 months by a double-width horizontal memorial of similar design.

Several items of reordering were proposed. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of the front row of choir pews on each side of the chancel. The Ancient Monuments Society objected likewise and also to the moving of the chancel screen to the west end of the church. It also had reservations about the ramp leading up to the dais. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the proposals. The Chancellor decided that the petitioners' justification for the proposals was persuasive and he granted a faculty, subject to a condition (inter alia) that the frontals of the choir stalls should be relocated after the front rows of stalls on either side had been removed.

An application for a memorial was refused by the priest-in-charge, as it was outside the churchyards regulations as regards the proposal to include a photograph of the deceased. The applicant was advised to apply for a faculty. The stonemasons subsequently installed the memorial, including a photographic plaque, without the authority of a faculty. An application was made for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor granted a faculty allowing the photograph to remain for a period of 18 years, the life expectancy of the applicant plus 3 years, after which the photograph must be removed. The Chancellor stated that the stonemasons were at fault in not being aware of the restrictions against photographs in the churchyards regulations and installing a memorial without lawful authority. She directed that a special citation be issued to join the stonemasons as a party with a view to issuing an order for the costs of the faculty application to be paid by them.

Eltham churchyard was closed by Order in Council. The cremated remains of the petitioner's father had been interred near the west end of the church in 1961 and the interment was marked by a memorial stone measuring 18 inches by 12 inches. In 1989, the incumbent agreed with the petitioner and her mother, that their ashes could in due time be interred next to the ashes of the petitioner's father, though there was only room for one more commemoration on the memorial. The petitioner's mother died in 2020 and her cremated remains were interred under her husband's memorial stone. The petitioner sought a faculty, (1) to secure the arrangement agreed with the incumbent in 1989, so that her own cremated remains could in due time be buried next to those of her parents, (2) to permit a further stone next to the memorial to her parents; and (3) to replace the existing stone, which had weathered badly. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petition proposed the disposal of all the pews in the unlisted Church dedicated in 1911 and their replacement with two sets of upholstered chairs in two different colours, some orange and some blue. The chairs were being donated by a local Methodist church. The Victorian Society did not object to the removal of the pews, but objected to the proposed chairs, which "would cause undue harm to the building’s special interest, character and charm". Notwithstanding this view, the Chancellor decided to grant a faculty.

Re St. John Hoveton [2024] ECC Nor 2

The petitioners wished to replace all the oak pews, which were installed in 1890, with stackable, upholstered chairs and also replace the under pew heaters with an infrared system. All the statutory consultees criticised the proposals. The Chancellor decided that the petitioners had not made out a sufficiently strong case for the removal of all the pews from the Grade II* church and also that the proposed type of chair was unsuitable. He therefore refused to grant a faculty for those items. With regard to the proposed heaters, the Chancellor decided to adjourn the petition, in order to give the petitioners time to decide whether they wished to proceed with that part of their petition and, if so, to obtain an independent expert report as to whether the proposed heaters were likely to affect the fabric of the church.

A confirmatory faculty was sought for the permanent removal of seven paintings from the east end of the Victorian church and their permanent storage within the church. The paintings had been executed on linoleum by the wife of a former incumbent over 100 years previously and had covered the painted Ten Commandments, Creed and Lord’s Prayer. They had been taken down in August 2019 after it was noticed that they were buckling and part of the decoration behind was visible. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the four outer paintings to be permanently removed and stored, on condition that they were to be restored, preserved and stored in the body of the church. He imposed a further condition that the three central paintings should also be restored and then reinstated.

This was an application for a faculty to install a stained glass window in the Grade II church in memory of the late husband of the church organist. The deceased had been a farmer, and the design (recommended by the Diocesan Advisory Committee) included "two doves and an owl, a small figure in silhouette, possibly sowing in a broadcast fashion, and a donkey and rabbit, with a tree in leaf and on the branches the words: ‘Lord make me an instrument of your peace, where there is hatred let me sow love’". The Church Buildings Council was of the opinion that this design would not sit well with the other stained glass windows, depicting single figures in a more traditional design. However, the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty. There was a memorial inscription on the proposed window. The Chancellor did not consider that he had to treat an application for a memorial window in the same way as an application for a memorial in church (i.e., the deceased had made some outstanding contribution to the life of the church, the community or the nation).

A funeral director applied a few days after an interment of ashes for a faculty to authorise their temporary exhumation, as he had overlooked the family's request that a portion of the ashes should be withheld from interment in the churchyard, in order that they could be interred elsewhere. The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the the removal of a portion of the ashes from the casket containing the ashes as the funeral director had acted promptly and his mistake was an exceptional reason to justify exhumation, in order that the wishes of the family could be carried out.