An extensive programme of reordering was proposed, including raising the nave floor and introducing new limestone flagstones; underfloor heating; air source heat pumps in the churchyard; replacing the nave pews with chairs, introduction of a west end gallery with two toilets underneath; and other items too numerous to be listed in a short summary. The main object of the proposals was ‘putting the church to viable uses that are consistent with its role as a place of worship and mission.’ Approximately 40 letters of objection were received, but no objector became a party opponent. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the majority of the works.

The petitioners applied for a confirmatory faculty to retain in the churchyard a memorial to a member of the family. The memorial had been installed without permission and did not comply with the churchyards regulations. The memorial was in the form of a wedge-shaped plinth of polished black stone and large enough to allow the addition in the future of further inscriptions in respect of other family members, it being their intention to create a family plot. The Parochial Church Council did not support the petition, as they had in recent times been striving to make sure that the churchyards regulations were complied with, notwithstanding breaches in the past. The Chancellor determined that the petitioners had failed to provide a sufficient justification for retaining the memorial, or for displacing the parish’s desire to uphold the regulations, and he therefore refused to grant a faculty and ordered that the stone should be removed.

The petitioner's late wife's ashes had been interred in the grave of her mother in 2019. The petitioner had obtained the approval of the Team Vicar to the laying of a ledger stone in memory of his wife on the grave. The stone was not one which was authorised under the churchyards regulations, which the Team Vicar had failed to appreciate. This oversight came to light when a couple who had known the petitioner's wife, wrote to the Diocesan Registry to object to the stone being outside the regulations and out of keeping with other stones in the churchyard. The Chancellor decided ("Not without some hesitation ...") to allow the stone to remain, as the petitioner had "the full support of the minister, the churchwardens, the PCC, the DAC, and the petitioner’s family, and for powerful pastoral considerations".

The Petitioners sought a faculty for the rebuilding and restoration of the organ in the nineteenth century Grade II listed church. An organs adviser from the Church Buildings Council advised against the planing of the pedal keys, the replacement of the ivories, and the stripping of the front pipes before their repainting. The Chancellor determined to grant a faculty for the proposed works, but without imposing the conditions recommended by the organs adviser.

Faculty refused for the reservation of a grave space for the petitioner's children, none of whom had a legal right to be buried in the churchyard. The PCC objected on the ground that the grave would be in the way of a proposed extension to the churchyard, and the Team Rector, for the same reason, would not give consent. The Chancellor stated that, where a person does not have a legal right of burial, the consent of the incumbent is required.

From the 17th century until 1969, a spiked helmet with visor (an 'armet') had hung from a bracket in the church. For security reasons, it was then placed in a bank vault. In 1974 a faculty was granted to allow the armet to be placed on indefinite loan with the Armouries of thw Tower of London. It was subsequently moved with much of the Tower Armouries collection to the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds in 1996. In 2010 the Parochial Church Council was short of funds and wished to sell the armet. The consent of heirs at law was obtained. The Chancellor decided that financial justification for sale was proved by the Petitioners, and he therefore granted a faculty. [There was a subsequent appeal by the Church Buildings Council against the sale, and the Court of Arches allowed the appeal.]

From the 17th century until 1969, a spiked helmet with visor (an 'armet') had hung from a bracket in the church. For security reasons, it was then placed in a bank vault. In 1974 a faculty was granted to allow the armet to be placed on indefinite loan with the Armouries of thw Tower of London. It was subsequently moved with much of the Tower Armouries collection to the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds in 1996. In 2010 the Parochial Church Council was short of funds and wished to sell the armet. The consent of heirs at law was obtained. The Chancellor decided that financial justification for sale was proved by the Petitioners, and he therefore granted a faculty. [There was a subsequent appeal by the Church Buildings Council against the sale, and the Court of Arches allowed the appeal.]

The Chancellor refused to grant faculties for the reservation of two separate grave spaces in the churchyard, notwithstanding that the applicants had connections with the church. The churchyard was likely to be full within 5 years. The Chancellor said that the remaining spaces must be filled by the burial of individuals with a right of burial or a strong connection with the church in the order in which they die, until such time as the churchyard becomes full.

The petitioner wished to place a memorial on the grave of his late wife. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not approve of the design, a bronze plaque on a rough-hewn, wedge-shaped, local stone, as not befitting the setting. It also considered the inscription (which included a verse by Byron) too lengthy and over-personal. The Chancellor saw no reason to disallow the design of the memorial, but was concerned about the inscription. He determined to grant a faculty, subject to the Petitioner agreeing a suggested alternative inscription set out in the judgment, omitting the proposed verse or including an alternative verse from Holy Scripture or classical Christian poetry or hymnody.

The priest-in-charge and churchwardens sought a confirmatory faculty for replacement of the nave and chancel ceilings and partial redecoration of the interior of the church, including the reredos panels. The plaster used included synthetic fibres, rather than traditional horse hair, and a modern paint had been used instead of limewash. The Commissary General considered that there was some minor harm to the significance of the Grade II* building, but accepted the expert evidence that it would do more harm than good, in physical terms, to strip out the work and start again. She accordingly granted a confirmatory faculty, subject to a condition that the work done should be monitored and reported on annually by the church architect for a period of ten years.