The Grade I church of St. Leonard Old Langho is closed and vested in the Churches Conservation Trust, but the churchyard remains the responsibility of the Parochial Church Council. The vicar of the parish in which the church lies applied for a retrospective faculty to authorise the retention of two benches placed in the churchyard by persons unknown without the authority of a faculty or List B approval under the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules. Retrospective approval under List B is not possible, hence the need for a faculty. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but stated that in future he would "expect any PCC to petition for the removal of any unauthorised benches which they may find within their churchyard, leaving it to the person or persons who placed each bench there to petition for its retention, and to justify their conduct in having proceeded without prior lawful authority."

The petitioner wished to introduce into the churchyard a polished dark grey granite memorial in the shape of a traditional Gypsy caravan. On the front would be a representation of the double doors of such a caravan with blank windows and the doors flanked on either side by the engraved representation of a lit hurricane lamp. An inscription would be placed on the left-hand door, with the right hand door capable of bearing a further inscription following a later interment in the grave. It was also proposed that on the reverse of the stone there would be a representation of the rear window of a Gypsy caravan, with curtains at the window and a suspended cage containing two songbirds visible through the window. It was also requested that below the window there should be etched a representation of a horse-drawn two-wheeled waggon. It was proposed that the etched designs and inscription should be silvered. The deceased had lived all his life in a traditional Gypsy caravan. The Deputy Chancellor approved the  memorial, with the exception of the representation of a waggon on the reverse side.

The incumbent and churchwardens applied for a faculty to permit various items of reordering in order to provide facilities in the church for a wide range of church and community events in what is a fairly isolated village. The proposals included 2 WCs, a "kitchen pod", a new staircase and ringing floor, new cupboards, replacement of the pews with wooden unupholstered chairs, moving of the font, new underfloor heating, new flooring, new lighting, solar panels, an air source heat pump, and new water and sewage services. A local objector claimed that no detailed costings had been carried out, and he challenged the assumptions about community use. The amenity societies involved had reservations about the kitchen facilities being enclosed, because of the impact of the walls on the surrounding church fabric. The Chancellor granted a faculty, to enable the petitioners to move forward with obtaining funding, but he reserved a decision as to whether the kitchen facilities should be enclosed or not until he had visited the church and made a final decision.

The churchwardens wished to remove from the churchyard a headstone placed on a grave after permission was refused by the Area Dean. The owner of the memorial (himself a stonemason) claimed that he did not receive notice of refusal until after the memorial had been installed. The memorial was of black or very dark grey polished stone and comprised an upright stone with kerbs and a ledger stone covering the grave. The Chancellor decided that, if the owner of the memorial had gone about things correctly, she would have authorised the stone. Therefore she dismissed the petition for its removal, but required the owner of the memorial to pay the costs of the proceedings.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the replacement of five cast iron downpipes and associated hoppers with high density polyethylene (HDPE) replacements on a Grade II* listed church.

The proposals were to increase the size of the stage upon which the altar was situated; to install a new screen for the projector; and to move the Cross from its present position to the left side of the church, as it would otherwise be partially blocked by the new screen. There was one objection to the proposed repositioning of the Cross. The objector suggested an alternative position, which was agreed by the Parish, and a facutlty was granted for the Cross to be moved along the wall towards the stage opposite the entrance door, so that it would be viewed clearly when entering the worship area.

In 2021 a Faculty had been granted for extensive reordering of the unlisted 19th century church, following its relaunch as a youth resourcing church. The faculty contained a condition that "None of the existing historic fittings in the church building are to be altered and the chancel is to remain as existing." In 2023, a faculty application sought 'retrospective permission for the removal of the pulpit and disposal of church furnishings including credence tables, lecterns and small tables’. The items had been sold to an architectural salvage company at short notice to facilitate completion of the works authorised in 2021 in time for the reopening of the church in October 2023. Notwithstanding objections from the Victorian Society regarding the removal of the pulpit, the Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the style of worship in the church had changed fundamentally and that the pulpit and other items were no longer needed for worship in the church. 

There was a petition by the Rector and Churchwardens and a telecommunications company seeking permission for the installation of six antennae and a transmission dish in the bell tower behind replacement GRP louvres, and the completion of a licence agreement. There were three written objections. Two of the objectors raise an issue about the adequacy of publication. The Chancellor gave a preliminary decision on this issue, directing that, in view of the sensitivity of the subject-matter, there should be republication of the notices.

The Rector and Churchwardens petitioned for a faculty to permit the installation of telecommunications equipment in the tower of the Grade II* church, and to permit the completion of a licence agreement with Net Coverage Solutions Limited. There were over 80 objectors, none of whom became parties opponent. Faculty granted.

This decision contains directions arising from a further objection received following the decision in Re St. Luke Charlton [2016] ECC Swk 1, which related to the proposed installation of telecoms equipment in the church tower. The new objector claimed that the proposed equipment would emit harmful radiation. The Chancellor pointed out that, in view of the Court of Arches decision in Re Emmanuel Church Bentley (2006), he could not refuse a faculty  on the grounds of danger to health, if the proposed equipment complied with international guidelines, which it did. To pursue such a claim might therefore put the objector at risk of an order for costs, if he pursued such an objection. The Chancellor therefore gave the objector 21 days in which to consider the leagl position and decide whether he wished to withdraw his objection.