In recent years the Rector and Parochial Church Council had discouraged the use of grey granite for memorials in the churchyard, even though there were already a few such stones in the churchyard. The petitioner had in fact already had a honed grey granite memorial made by a stonemason in a neighouring diocese. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for a further grey granite memorial: "... the approach which the Rector and the Parochial Church Council have taken over recent years of preventing further granite memorials seeks to ensure that for the future memorials in the churchyard will be of a material compatible with the church and the locality. That approach is an entirely appropriate one. This is particularly so given the grade I listing of the church and the appearance of the surrounding area."

The petitioner's brother died aged 21 in 1977 and was buried in the churchyard. A dark grey polished headstone bearing two carved images (a church window and ears of corn) was placed on the grave. The petitioner's mother died in 2020 and her remains were interred in the grave, but there was insufficient room on the existing headstone for a further inscription. The petitioner applied for permission to replace the headstone with a new one which did not conform to the churchyard regulations, in that it would have a polished surface and more than two carved images - similar images to those on the original headstone, plus a small carved rose, as the petitioner's mother (Rosalie) was known as Rose. Also the words 'Mum, Nan and Great Nan' were proposed as part of the inscription. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the three images would not make the stone look cluttered, and he did not object to the use of the words 'Mum, Nan and Great Nan'.

The petitioner wished to remove the existing memorial from her late brother's grave and replace it with a new memorial commemorating both her brother and her mother. The existing memorial fell outside the churchyards regulations, being a polished stone. The proposed new memorial fell outside the regulations, in view of the number of carved images proposed. The original memorial had two images. A third image, a rose, was proposed for the new memorial, next to the name of the petitioner's mother, whose name was Rosalie, though she was known as Rose. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

There was a proposal for reordering in the unlisted church, built in the 1950s, to include removal of the black and white composite tiles and laying of carpet; replacement of the pews with chairs; and removal of two prayer desks. At a site visit the Chancellor saw that the floor tiles had already been removed and replaced with carpet, the pews had been removed, and there was a mixture of upholstered chairs in poor condition. Notwithstanding the unlawfulness of the works being carried our without prior lawful authority, the Chancellor was satisfied that the church would be enhanced by the proposed changes. He granted a faculty for all the works (except for the removal of one of the prayer desks), providing for the chairs already in the church to be replaced with 110 Vesta stacking chairs, with chrome frames and upholstery in a pewter colour.

The petitioner's father's body had been buried in the churchyard in 2014. A double depth grave had been requested, but it had not been possible to dig double depth. When the petitioner's mother died in 2017, a request was made for burial in an adjoining grave, but the petitioner was informed that it would not be possible, as there were tree roots in the way, so the petitioner's mother was buried elsewhere in the churchyard. The petitioner subsequently sought advice from an arboriculturist, who advised that it would be possible to dig an adjacent grave without harm to the tree. The Petitioner therefore sought permission to exhume her mother's body and inter it in the grave next to her father. The Chancellor decided that there were exceptional circumstances to justify granting a faculty for exhumation and reinterment.

Following lead thefts, a faculty was sought to authorise the re-roofing of the north and south side aisles and the south porch of the church with Dryseal® glass reinforced plastic (“GRP”) at a considerably lower cost than the cost of lead. English Heritage made a formal objection, preferring to see terne-coated stainless steel used. The Chancellor granted a faculty. Given the nature and location of the roofs concerned, which could not be seen from ground level, due to the parapets, the higher cost of lead, and the increased likelihood of theft, he could see no reason to insist on the use of lead.

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.