A scheme of reordering was proposed for the church, including covering the whole floor with carpet. The Chancellor approved the works, incuding the carpet, as the church had "no architectural or aesthetic merit whatever", and he referred to Professor Pevsner's description of the church as "bad". Therefore the carpet would not adversley affect the character of the church. Also, the Chancellor accepted the arguments that the carpet would deaden the sound coming from the busy main road immediately next to the church.
(Note: This judgment also deals with a separate petition which included a proposal for carpeting, and is therefore separately listed as Re St. Michael the Archangel South Malling [1985] Quentin Edwards Ch. (Chichester)).

The faculty petition related to extensive internal reordering works, to enable more varied use of the church both in worship and for community events and to provide greater accessibility. The Chancellor was satisfied that, notwithstanding the loss of the remaining fixed seating,  the works would have little impact on the overall architectural character and appearance of the building, and she therefore granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished the Chancellor to vary a faculty granted in 2018 in respect of the choice of chair to be used in the internal reordering of the church, by approving their suggested choice of the (upholstered) Alpha SB2M chair in substitution for the previously intended Trinity ‘Abbey’ (un-upholstered) chair. The Church Buildings Council, the Victorian Society and the Diocesan Advisory Committee were not in favour of upholstered seating. The Chancellor was satisfied that the proposed alternative seat had a good 'track record' and that it was acceptable for this particular church. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The Vicar and Churchwardens wished to carry out an extensive programme of reordering to facilitate the use of the church as a 'Resource Church' capable of reversing church decline in Blackpool, with an emphasis on encouraging young people to attend the church. The Church Buildings Council (CBC) and the Victorian Society (VS) objected to the covering of the Victorian tiled flooring with carpet. The VS also objected to the removal of the canopied pulpit and the lectern. However, neither the CBC nor the VS wished to be parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that, far from causing harm to the significance of the church (which had been dramatically changed by previous reorderings before it was listed), the proposals would enhance the setting, and any harm would be outweighed by public benefits. The Chancellor granted a faculty for all the proposals, with the exception of the lectern, deferring a decision on that item until the reordering of the war memorial chapel was completed, in case the lectern could conveniently be accommodated there.

The petitioners wished to separate the altar from the reredos, modify it, so that it would be free-standing, and move it away from the east end, to enable the priest to celebrate facing west; to relocate the reredos to the link between the church and the church hall ; and to renovate an old table to become a credence table. The Victorian Society objected to the separation of the reredos and altar and proposed re-siting of the reredos. The Church Buildings Council objected to the reredos being placed to the link to the hall. The Chancellor considered that there was a good case for moving the altar to allow west-facing celebration, and also safety benefits for the restricted space in the east end of this small church; also  the scheme would allow the retention, rather than disposal, of the reredos. There would also be the benefit of exposing the original stained glass window hidden by the reredos. The Chancellor therefore granted a faculty.

The petition proposed a ramped access at the entrance to the church, a kitchenette at the west end of the church and the erection of a single storey extension to house a WC. Four individuals presented written objections, but the Diocesan Advisory Committee, Historic Buildings and Places and the Church Buildings Council approved of the proposals. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had presented a sufficiently good case for the proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The Team Rector and Churchwardens sought a faculty for substantial internal reordering, to create a major transformation of the church's interior, in order to further its mission and community use. Almost half of the judgment deals with the proposal to remove the existing pews and replace them with wooden chairs with padded seats and backs. Other major items considered in detail are the removal of the pulpit, the replacement of the pipe organ with an electronic organ, and the re-siting of the font. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made out a good case for all the proposals and granted a faculty.

The petitioners proposed a 21-space car park in the churchyard of the Victorian Grade II church, in order to formalise existing parking arrangements. There was a shortage of available parking for visitors to the church and parish centre and parking in the churchyard already occurred. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the works were designed to “have a low impact visually and to protect the grass surface of the churchyard, to minimise disturbance of grave sites and to fulfil an obvious need for visitors to the church”.

The works proposed were for the construction of below ground drainage infrastructure in the churchyard, east of the chancel, to facilitate the future installation of toilets in the church, which would be the subject of a separate faculty petition. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to reorder the interior of the church to provide toilets, a kitchen, storage and improved heating. The church was built in 1869 by the architect W. H. Crossland and is Grade II listed. The Parochial Church Council's objective was to ensure that the church stayed open for church and community use and thereby avoided closure. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Notwithstanding the general aspirations of the petitioners,  he considered that the works would result in harm to the significance of this church as a building of special architectural or historic interest, and the petitioners had not produced sufficient substantive evidence of the prospective benefits of the works which might outweigh any harm that might be caused to the historic integrity of the church.