The petitioner wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard. She had lived in a house overlooking the churchyard for 51 years. Her mother was buried in the churchyard and it was proposed that in due time her father would be buried in the same grave as her mother. In February 2017 the Parochial Church Council had resolved unanimously that it would not support

The petitioner’s son had died as a result of a house fire in 1992. Not wishing for cremation for her son at the time, the petitioner arranged for his body to be buried in the churchyard at Belleau. The petitioner’s father had tended to grave until he was no longer able to do so, since when the grave had become difficult to visit, due to problems in the churchyard, including sunken graves, molehills and red ants. The petitioner now wished to have her son’s body exhumed, cremated and ashes interred in the grave of his grandmother, where the petitioner hoped in due time to have her own ashes interred. The Chancellor decided that the creation of the family grave was a sufficient exceptional reason to allow exhumation and reinterment.

The proposals included an extension to the south tower of the church, to include toilets, a plant room and storage; reordering, including glazed porch doors, removal of a kitchenette and a redundant organ, new heating, the carpeting of the nave and replacement of the pews with chairs. The Chancellor granted a faculty. Whilst he would normally be disinclined to approve carpet, in the present case it would cover the existing mixed floor finishes and provide 'a uniform homogenous flooring where currently it is patchy'.

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.