The Vicar and churchwardens sought permission to re-order the chancel area of the Grade II Victorian church by removing and disposing of the rear choir stalls and replacing them with the front stalls, carrying out some modifications to enlarge the leg-room available, making good any exposed tiles and laying carpet across the widened chancel aisle to match the nave aisle carpet. The object of the proposals was to make the use of the church by the children of the village school more convenient and effective and also increase the possibilities of using the building for concerts and community events. The Victorian Society objected to the covering of the Minton tiles with carpet. The Chancellor approved the proposals and granted a faculty.

The petitioners sought a faculty for an extension to be added to the north side of the church and for internal re-ordering, including replacement of the pews with partially upholstered chairs, some new furniture, disposal of the pulpit and lectern, the relocation of a chest tomb, and the introduction of a nave plinth. The Victorian Society argued that the loss of all the pews would rob the church of its character, and the removal of the pulpit could not be justified. Also, it did not consider upholstered seating appropriate. A number of parishioners also raised objections. Taking the proposals as a whole, the Chancellor was satisfied that they would provide a better environment for the varied worshipping needs of the church, community events and provision for children's activities. The Chancellor therefore granted a faculty.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the installation of a projector screen in a housing over the chancel arch of the church and a fixed projector, to replace the existing arrangement of erecting a portable screen and placing a portable projector on a flower stand in the pews. He based his decision on the grounds of visibility and safety. The Chancellor was satisfied that, "The impact on the appearance of the church will be modest and the benefits to be obtained by the proposed works are sufficient to overcome the presumption against change."

The proposals were to alter the floor levels inside and outside the south porch and adjust the doors, to improve access for those with disabilities; to create a new doorway in the north wall, as a fire escape, and to remove and dispose of the pipe organ from the place where the new fire door would be inserted, with the intention of later installing an electronic organ. There were six letters of objection, and the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend of the disposal of the organ. The Chancellor granted a faculty for the works to the porch and the new fire exit door, but he was not satisfied that it was appropriate to authorise the removal of the pipe organ at this stage, as possible relocation of the organ within the church had not been fully explored, nor the alternative of replacing the organ with a smaller pipe organ, and the petition did not request authority for the installation of a particular electronic organ.

The petitioners wished to remove two rows of pews from the west end of the nave of the church, in order to create space for church and community activities. The Chancellor was satisfied that it was appropriate to grant a faculty. The church would remain predominantly pewed and any harm to the special significance of the Grade I church would be modest and would be outweighed by the potential benefits.

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.