The petitioner wished to have the remains of her late father-in-law temporarily exhumed for DNA analysis. She claimed that in 2018 her husband had been wrongly convicted of two rapes in 1983 and 1988. The petitioner's sister-in-law did not believe that her brother had committed the offences of which he had been convicted, but that her father might well have been the perpetrator. The Chancellor considered that the petitioner had made out a case for the temporary disinterment of the remains and sampling of bone fragments for DNA analysis, to establish whether there was a possibility of a miscarriage of justice. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The petition related to the disposal of an upright piano, which was beyond repair and the installation of a grand piano, which was a gift from a local arts charity. The installation of the grand piano had already been authorised by an Archdeacon's temporary licence and the petition sought approval for the installation to remain permanent. There were two objectors, who did not become parties opponent. The Diocesan Advisory Committee approved the proposals and all but one member of the Parochial Church Council (one of the objectors) voted in favour. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The Parochial Church Council wished to fell and grind out the roots of a holly tree and to repair a collapsed section of the churchyard wall. A parishioner objected that the removal of the tree was unnecessary; that judicious pruning would allow the wall to be rebuilt; and that the cost was excessive. The proposal was recommended by the Diocesan Advisory Committee, a tree specialist and the church's inspecting architect. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the removal of the tree and he granted a faculty, subject to a condition for a replacement planting in the churchyard.

The war memorial in the churchyard was dedicated in 1921 and bore the names of those who gave their lives in the First World War. Subsequently, the names of those who lost their lives in the Second World War were added. The Parochial Church Council now wished to have the memorial refurbished in time for the forthcoming commemoration of 100 years from the end of the First World War. As part of the refurbishment, they wished to have the names of the fallen gilded. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not approve of gilded lettering. The Chancellor granted a faculty allowing the names to be gilded: the DAC's decision was based on an aesthetic evaluation, which the Chancellor felt was overruled by the depth of feeling of the petitioners to make the names prominent; a photograph of the memorial in 1921 shows that the lettering stood out; the aging of the memorial would allow it in due time to be more keeping with the church; the names of the fallen should be clearly legible to the local community.

A reordering scheme was proposed. The Victorian Society and the Church Buildings Council expressed concern about the following parts of the scheme: (1) the removal of the Victorian pews; (2) the introduction of plastic upholstered chairs; and (3) the introduction of carpeting to the north aisle. The Chancellor approved of the scheme, apart from the plastic upholstered chairs. She adjourned the proceedings for six months, to give the petitioners time to select an alternative type of chair and apply for an amendment of the faculty petition.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave 'until I die'. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but only for a term of 25 years, to provide certainty to the church as to the period of reservation. The Chancellor pointed out that, if at the end of the 25 years the petitioner wished to continue to reserve the space, an application could be made for an extension.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave 'until I die'. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but only for a term of 25 years, to provide certainty to the church as to the period of reservation. The Chancellor pointed out that, if at the end of the 25 years the petitioner wished to continue to reserve the space, an application could be made for an extension.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the felling of a sycamore tree. The petitioners had claimed that the work was necessary because the tree’s roots were damaging the churchyard retaining wall and the foundations of the church. In giving his judgment, the Chancellor set out the legal and practical aspects which should be taken into account when determining an application to remove a tree from a churchyard.

The petition related to the construction of a new two-storey extension on the north side of the church building and a car park to the west. The amenity societies approved the proposal, but two parishioners became parties opponent. The Chancellor was satisfied that there was no reason why he should not follow the decision of the local planning authority to grant a planning consent, and he therefore granted a faculty for the works.

The petitioners wished to have their father's ashes (interred in 2004) exhumed and reinterred in the grave of their mother, whose body was buried in 2015. Considering the guidelines in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002], the Chancellor determined to grant a faculty on the basis that (a) the reinterment would be into a family grave and would free up a cremation plot