The petitioners wished to remove the church pews and replace them with ICS stacking chairs of solid oak with an oak veneered plywood seat and back. The Victoria Society objected to the proposal, but was not a party opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that a very low degree of harm to the church would result from the removal of the pews, which would be substantially outweighed by the public benefit that would be achieved by their replacement. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for a single collective memorial on which could be recorded up to 120 names of those interred in the area for cremated remains of the churchyard. The Chancellor permitted a large stone of honed granite with three dark granite tablets. He would not normally have permitted such stone for a individual memorial in the churchyard of a sandstone church surrounded by mostly sandstone memorials. But he accepted that sandstone is much less durable than granite. Inscriptions would remain durable for longer on a granite tablet to which inscriptions would be added over a period of many years. Also, the memorial would not be close to other memorials in the churchyard and any adverse effect on the overall appearance of the churchyard would be minimal.

The petition proposed the reordering of the west end of the church, including: adding a ceiling to the vestry; replacing the current extension with a larger extension containing two toilets and baby-changing facilities; removing one row of pews in the nave; and removing two pews under the organ gallery and installing in their stead a servery/kitchenette and seating area; and works in the south aisle by way of the repositioning of an effigy. The Georgian Society and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings objected to the removal of two pews from under the organ gallery. The Chancellor was satisfied that any harm caused by the proposed works to the church’s special significance was only moderate, and he granted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to have the cremated remains of her parents exhumed from the churchyard and reinterred in an unconsecrated burial ground at the Trappist Abbey of Mount St. Bernard, near Coalville in North Leicestershire, where the remains of several members of her husband's family were interred. The petitioner's original reason for seeking exhumation had been that the family home, Quenby Hall, next to the churchyard, had to be sold. But in a revised petition the petitioner asked that a faculty be granted for three reasons: (i) the interments at Hungerton had been a mistake; (ii) it was intended to put the remains in a family grave; and (ii) pastoral reasons. The Chancellor did not accept the arguments and dismissed the petition.

The petitioners sought permission to replace a bench surrounding a tree in the churchyard. They submitted with the petition a report by a firm of arboriculturalists, which indicated that the tree was in a dangerous condition and should be removed. The Chancellor gave directions that he would not grant permission unless the petitioners were able to produce evidence that the tree was not as dangerous as had been suggested in the report. The petitioners submitted a report from a tree expert employed by the borough council, who said that the tree was basically sound, showed "excellent signs of vitality", and a Quantified Tree Risk Assessment had suggested that risk was at a tolerable level. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the new bench, subject to some lower branches of the tree being removed, as recommended by the borough council tree expert.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for (1) the removal of two rows of pews at the west end of the church, in order to create an area of more flexible use; (2) the provision of kitchen facilities in the vestry; (3) a hatch in the vestry screen; and (4) various electrical works.

The church had been seriously damaged by fire in December 2018, and the petitioners saw the restoration of the church as an opportunity to carry our some reordering to meet the future needs of the parish. In the wake of the fire there had been an interim faculty granted for the storage of the pews in the chancel until reinstatement or disposal. The petitioners now requested a faculty for the removal of the fire and water damaged pew platforms, disposal of the pews and a new floor. New seating would be the subject of a separate petition. The Victorian Society objected to the disposal of the pews. (Almost half the original Victorian pews had in fact been removed over time.) The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the benefits of removing the pews and pew platforms outweighed any harm to the church's significance and its aesthetic and
architectural qualities.

The petition proposed various landscaping works in the churchyard, relating to the addition of a churchyard extension. There was a single objection to the removal of a line of fir trees. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for all the proposed works.

The petitioners wished to replace three family memorials, which were unstable and/or eroded. The Parochial Church Council objected to the replacement of the stones with stones of modern design in the old part of the churchyard. They preferred the original stones to be restored. The Chancellor determined that one of the stones, which was unstable, should be dismantled, cleaned, re-engraved, and re-fixed securely. The other two memorials, where the inscriptions were illegible, should each either be dismantled, cleaned, re-engraved, and re-fixed securely; or alternatively or else replaced with a new memorial to precisely the same design and dimensions as the existing, with same inscription, and of stone similar in colour to the existing.

An extensive programme of reordering was proposed. There were several written objections, but only one party opponent. The Chancellor authorised in principle the majority of the proposals, subject to detailed designs, specifications and costings being approved by the Court or the Diocesan Advisory Committee, and subject to no work being undertaken until 90% of the cost of the works (including fees) had been raised or promised. The remaining items would have to be the subject of further petitions in the light of the current decision.