The Vicar and Churchwardens applied for a faculty to authorise the removal of all of the pews from the chancel and nave of the Grade II church and replace them with 120 wooden upholstered chairs. There were objections to removal of the pews and to replacement chairs being upholstered. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of all the pews and suggested that the existing carpet should be removed. The Chancellor determined that the petitioners had made a good case for the removal of the pews from the nave and for replacement chairs with upholstered seats, but not for the removal of the pews from the chancel. The retention of the pews in the chancel would maintain a discrete formal area, which would not affect the main objective of allowing for much greater flexibility of worship and other events in the nave.

The assistant curate and churchwardens applied for a faculty to have the church bell restored and rehung. The bell had been removed to the premises of a bell maintenance company in 2016, with the Archdeacon's permission, as it had become unsafe. A legacy had become available to meet most of the cost of the repair and rehanging. There was one objector, who did not become a party opponent. The Chancellor saw no substance in the grounds of objection and granted a faculty.

The vicar and churchwardens sought a faculty for the installation of a new audio-visual system in the church. Historic England suggested that a more adaptable and less permanent solution should be adopted, given that "the ever improving nature of audio-visual technology will also mean that these proposed screens will likely need to be replaced in a relatively short period of time". The Chancellor saw no reason to make the petitioners delay the installation of a new system pending new technology and he granted a faculty.

A woman had died and had been buried in the grave of her husband. She left eight children. One of the daughters and her husband were appointed executors and sole beneficiaries of her will. This had caused a rift in the family, including a dispute as to the validity of the will. The executors applied for a memorial, which the priest in charge approved as within her delegated authority under the churchyards regulations. Not all the siblings had been consulted or had agreed on the proposed inscription. Four of the siblings petitioned that all the siblings should be required to agree a new form of words. The Deputy Chancellor took the view it was doubtful that the Court could make such an order. Instead, he had to consider whether the inscription was appropriate, or whether there were sufficiently good reasons for removal and replacement of the memorial. He decided that the inscription was not inappropriate, and there was therefore no good reason to order the removal of the stone, simply because there had not been consultation with and unanimous agreement between all the siblings.

There were two proposals: (1) to replace the existing 20th century brick extension to the north of the church with a new church community hall and (2) various items of reordering inside the church. The Victorian Society  objected to a number of details of the both proposals.The Chancellor granted a faculty the extension and the internal reordering, with the exception of the removal of two pews and the removal and reuse of the stone from the pulpit, for which he did not consider that an adequate case had been made.

This judgment deals with two outstanding matters following the judgment in Re St. John the Evangelist Manthorpe [2019] ECC Lin 4, namely, dismantling of the pulpit and repositioning of the chancel pews. The reason for the repositioning of the chancel pews follows on from the altar rail being moved westwards to allow more ease in administering communion. The Chancellor approved the proposal. However, he did not give permission for the 're-imagining' of the pulpit into two separate tiems, but suggested that the petitioners should take advice about moving the pulpit within the church.

To improve the accessibility, openness, visibility and welcome to visitors to the church, the petitioners wished to create a glazed outer porch to the main entrance of the church; a ramp within the existing porch space; improved entrance lighting; and adjustments to the current doors. The church was built between 1955 and 1957 and is Grade II listed. The Twentieth Century Society had concerns about the structure of the outer porch. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the proposals and granted a faculty. 

The proposal was to replace an existing plain glass window with a stained glass design depicting St. John the Evangelist in the left hand light and St. George in the right hand light. The window would be a gift to the church from the Rt. Hon. Lord Waddington GCVO, and an inscription at the base of one of the lights would state that it was a  gift to the church from him. The Church Buildings Council raised various concerns, one of which was that there was a general principle that living donors should not be commemorated in stained glass or other church artworks. Whilst recognising such a generally accepted principle, the Deputy Chancellor stated that it was possible to allow exceptions. In the present case the donor was a 'son of the village', and had held office as Home Secretary and as Governor of Bermuda. A Faculty was granted.

An application was made for a book-shaped memorial which had features outside the churchyards regulations. The Parochial Church Council and the Diocesan Advisory Committee had objections to some of the features of the proposed memorial. The Chancellor determined that the memorial would cause only very limited harm to the churchyard and listed church building and he granted a faculty, subject to the constraints on dimensions set out in the judgment and subject to the stone not bearing a picture or photograph.

A memorial was proposed for the grave of a child who had died aged 6. The stone chosen was honed dark grey granite with a stone slab and stone chippings within kerbs. After consultation with the Archdeacon, the Deputy Chancellor decided to grant a faculty for the stone and kerbs, provided that there would be no slab and no chippings. There were already several graves with kerbstones in the churchyard, and the memorial proposed would be in the far corner of the churchyard, where it would only be seen by people visiting that area.